Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Kevin Andre Shanton

Kevin Andre Shanton Chess Player, Rapper, Honor Roll Student Bank Robber, Gang Member, Hagerstown Md. Winchester Va.

D.O.B 07-03-1990
5'5 230lbs 

150 Felony Charges Facebook Name: Kevin Meechie Shanton

Tv3 Winchester of Winchester Va Winchester Star of Winchester Va The Harold of Hagerstown Md Your4state of Hagerstown Md — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.70 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ben Watts fashion photographer

Could you please advise on Ben Watts? He is the brother of Naomi Watts but seems to fail notability from reliable sources, nor can I see any. I've just shortened a section on Next (clothing) on the grounds that it seemed suspiciously like self publicity for the advert makers and extras in a commercial. Thanks in anticipation. JRPG (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

About Ben Watts. Did you read this? NY Times source. Plus, his article has been around for 4 years here without being deleted. Just needs improvement possibly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this which I'll use immediately.JRPG (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines needed for plays/drama

Hi, there is an WP:RfC at WT:WikiProject Theatre#Notability guidelines needed for plays/drama on what would constitute notability standards for articles on plays. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers

Are there any more specific guidelines regarding Newspapers like the WP:BK is for books. The Mormon Worker has been tagged (not by me) as having questionable notability since June and I would like to resolve that issue, but I'm not sure what the guidelines regarding Newspapers themselves when they help establish notability for there subjects.

Any newspaper that gets referenced by larger/major newspapers is passes a WP:GNG test. There are 3 indisputable independent references to The Mormon Worker cited in the article. I added my comment to the talk page. patsw (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Geographic notability

Ballowharf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor in another forum (don't remember who or when) said that "communities" were inherently notable. I asked for support for the statement and got none. Another editor, in the above article, removed the notability tag, saying the same thing, and I again challenged the assertion. This editor was more cooperative and pointed me to the essay (not a guideline) on geographic notability: Wikipedia:Notability (geography). I responded that even accepting the essay as a guideline, which I don't, communities like Ballowharf are not automatically notable because it has no "legal recognition", which I assume to mean that it is a legal entity like a city or a town or possibly even a village, depending on the country and its laws. I restored the tag.

First, I think we need a guideline on this, not an essay. Second, and because I think creating a guideline would probably take some time, I don't think Ballowharf is notable even per the essay.

The only other thing I'd add to this mix is a previous conversation on this board about villages (here), which, it doesn't seem to me, resulted in any real consensus. Big surprise and supportive of my guess that a guideline would be difficult to create.

I'm going to wait to see if I get any input on this issue here, and then I may nominate Ballowharf for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legally recognized place? If so per the essay your provided it maybe notable. If it is not, then we need to see the size of the population, supported by an RS of course, and then decide from there. If it is not, perhaps it can be merged and redirected.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:5 since Wikipedia is partly a gazeteer.  WP:NPLACE states, "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source".  I have also replied on the talk page at Talk:Ballowharf.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says it's a "community", whatever that means. Is there a reliable source saying it's a village? I'm assuming you're not contending it's a city. WP:5 is way too broad to rely on for this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the reliable source says that it is a "P" or "populated place", and that WP:NPLACE "regardless of size" means "any populated place".  WP:NPLACE is not a hard and fast rule, but Google satellite view shows buildings in rows.  Yes, there are multiple technical issues that need more research as I have discussed on Talk:Ballowharf.  Also, you might look at Barber Island, which should give the sense that being remote does not equate to being geographically non-notable on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be making logical leaps that don't conform to the guideline or even to the essay. The guideline just talks about cities and villages. It doesn't say anywhere "any populated place", and such an interpretation is unsupported. The essay talks about "populated, legally recognized places", not just "populated places". At this point, it hasn't been shown that Ballo Wharf is a village or a legally recognized place. Again, even assuming the essay should be applied, it hasn't been satisfied. Also, I never said anything about "remote".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Ballo Wharf is neither a city nor a village?  Even by legalistic standards, WP:NPLACE is about "places", and the reliable source at geographic.org identifies Ballo Wharf as a "populated place".  I found this about Sierra Leone, "In 2008, Sierra Leone ranked 178 out of 178 in the UN Human Development Index."  Life expectancy is 47 years.  Even if you are now arguing that Ballo Wharf is not "remote", I think you can still look at Barber Island and draw parallels.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that guidelines are needed. I think that most locations are appropriate topics for an encyclopedia. Wxidea (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, (essay)"Wikipedia:Notability (geography)" has never had serious consideration by the editing community because it doesn't reflect the current policy or consensus behavior with respect to editing gazetteer articles.

• Secondly, the past and current practice is that government or other official recognition of any place name is the threshold for inclusion of a place name as a standalone article. The only rationale for deleting Ballowharf would be that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or the government of Sierra Leone has made an error in including its own lists.

• Finally, even if this article were deleted, some other editor or article creation bot could data mine the NGIA data or the Sierra Leone data and recreate the article. patsw (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the notability of Juxtapoz

Could experienced editors take a look at this magazine? 2 of its 3 references are questionable. Thanks! John Milito (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

117 mentions in news, 99 mentions in scholarly sources, and 542 mentions in books. It appears to be notable, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks notable to me also. Largest circulation art magazine in U.S., Over 100k/month, depending on the source. Wxidea (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point was not that its not notable in real life, but that its not notable according to its Wikipage because its references are so few and poor. Perhaps a "needs more references" box is more appropriate. Thanks for having a look. John Milito (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The first impulse should be to improve the article, not to question why it exists. Quality citations for WP:N for this topic are trivial to find and I just added one myself. The magazine has published over 100 issues, it has a circulation of over 100K. patsw (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Wittes not notable

What makes this guy notable? He is a journalist who wrote a few books. He is not a legal scholar. Why are minor reporters notable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wittes 96.231.127.20 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)gk

Actually, he's more than a "minor reporter":

“ Benjamin Wittes is a Fellow and Research Director in Public Law at the Brookings Institution. A former editorial writer for The Washington Post specializing in legal affairs, Wittes currently writes a column for The New Republic online and is a contributing editor for The Atlantic Monthly. He is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. ”

Penguin bio patsw (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Jonathon Dalton

An article I've made has a notability tag and I'm interested in what I can do to remove it. I don't want to just delete it without going through the proper channels.

The article in question.

From my reading of articles on Notability/people and Notability in general, notability requires the inclusion of multiple, independent sources covering the subject of the article. I've included 3 interviews with the subject, as well was a prominent award and being cited in a prominent anthology (America's Best Comics). Am I overlooking a proper procedure to help the article's case for notability, or do I need to include more independent references (interviews, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistergiantrobot (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No big woof. Try to get better references, that's all; I didn't look over your current bunch but my guess is that's what the tag is about. I added two references from the National Post. If you need my help, write on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Darke (children's book in the Septimus Heap series)

User Legolas2186 and I are disagreeing about whether or not the children's fantasy novel Darke, by Angie Sage, meets the notability test and deserves a page. I've only made a few contributions to Wikipedia and so readily admit that I don't know all the rules governing page-worthiness. Legolas and I had a discussion about it here.

It seems to me that establishing notability for a newly released children's novel can be a bit tricky. However, given that the author, series, and first 5 books have all have pages, it seemed natural to me that the next book in the series would also be notable and page-worthy. Additionally, the series page contains a brief summary of the book in question, which has been released in multiple countries for about a month. I'm curious as to what the opinion of others on this is.

Thanks for helping to clarify! Scottcal (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language translations of book

If a book is notable enough to warrent an article, will the translations of the book also be notable enough to warrent its own article, assuming there are reliable sources covering this translation? According to Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Derivative_articles, "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability." I read this as covering translations of books, i.e. book translations are not notable. Another user concluded that the stated text only concerned fictional characters, and thus do not apply to book translations. The specific article in which this question arose was Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. I hope this question makes sense. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Entering disambiguation detail s for my shop's name as it conflicts with a non-commercial entry?

I'm wondering if anyone can advise me on how I best disambiguate the name of my shop from an etry that automatically redirects to a different subject, which includes some similar words, if my shop name is entered? I've not put a page with my e-shop's details on Wikipedia. Is it allowed? I know Starbucks has an entry. Any advice most appreciated.

To make matters worse the wikipedia entry for this other subject comes up first on google even if my shop name is typed in correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.253.15 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Time and temp

As far as I can tell there are no precedents for this (or even if it's been discussed before), but would a time and temperature number be notable? The one in Erie, Pennsylvania seems to have some history behind it, is one of the few still in operation and has reliable, secondary sources [1] [2] associated with it (presumably more offline). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 04:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of Parks and Recreation characters

Can someone tell me if any of these characters are notable? My own research says they are not notable to exist on their own nor is the information unique enough that the little content that isn't plot couldn't be merged into the character list for this show, Characters of Parks and Recreation. But adding a PROD to the page has just had the original author show up and remove them so I can already see that redirecting them will not stick, it will just get reverted. So I think it needs to go to AfD. Anyone more informed on the series able to tell me because I'm fairly sure they fail the requirements as have several 30 Rock and Fast and Furious characters under the same circumstances. Quick note, don't be tricked by the background section. I saw it, thought "wow, that's pretty meaty, must be a lot of real world info there". It's just more plot.

• Jerry Gergich
• Marlene Griggs-Knope
• Donna Meagle
• Andy Dwyer
• Ben Wyatt (Parks and Recreation)
• April Ludgate
• Ann Perkins
• Tom Haverford
• Mark Brendanawicz
• Jean-Ralphio Saperstein
  • Please note that there is already a talk page thread open to discuss this matter, where I have voiced my opinion on these proposed merges/deletions. I personally think it would be best to keep the conversation all in one place, and feel that Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs)'s bringing this to the noticeboard is premature and inappropriate. — Hunter Kahn 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and as I noted, your position is unlikely to change as is mine so I called for a second opinion on MY opinion, not for people to get involved with the separate discussion, which you just have.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dana Countryman

This article was deleted as an A7/G11 but I think all it needed was a little improvement. Although I'm unsure about notability and am seeking a second opinion however, as Google News had no hits but Google Books turned up several interesting results, showing that this person may be notable as an electronic musician. I restored it temporarily to my userspace if anyone wants to have a look at what the article was like, but will likely delete it again soon, unless someone thinks it has some worth and wants to take on the job of rewriting it. -- œ^™ 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the article was deleted perhaps too quickly, since I agree he's notable. Problem with the earlier article was essentially too much unreferenced material, so it looked like a resume. One thing I've grown to appreciate is that the first sentence or two should have a statement along the lines of X is notable because .... and have some reason spelled out. When this doesn't happen, it's like some key hurtle hasn't been jumped over, and the rest of the article rings hollow. If you like may I work on a redraft with you in your userspace?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's totally fine by me. -- œ^™ 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

List of hospitals

Are the content of lists of hospitals inherently notable? What if they are uncited and redlinked? - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Adam Brown

Anyone think this lot is notable: The_Adam_Brown? The entry seems self-penned (it was started by someone calling themselves ABmedia, whose only contribution to Wikipedia is this entry) and it seems to be something of an ironic joke as it claims: "The Adam Brown is currently famous for never having commercially released a single recording throughout their entire existence." Joke or not, this strikes me as somewhat short of notability. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

INOGATE

I would appreciate advice. User:Crusio tagged this article for notability, asking for outside sources. I provided some sources and removed the notability tag. Crusio then re-added the tag , adding 'so it has been mentioned a few times, that's not notability'. This seems to me unreasonable - INOGATE is a substantial EU initiative with recognised political and energy implications. However I am temperamentally loath to start edit wars with those spoiling for a fight. If mentions in unconnected outside journals, websites etc., as well as on the EU commission website, does not provide evidence of notability, can someone tell me what would be appropriate? With thanks - --Smerus (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

David L. Gray

I have a notability question, and I am bringing it here because I would like to get a consensus decision that can then be applied to the entire WikiProject that decision affects.

An article was created for David L. Gray. Initially, I felt this was a vanity article by the subject and brought it up on COI (basically, it turned out that the author was using personal knowledge of the subject he was writing about, and a similar handle to that of the subject, but was a different person). As I have given the article some time to develop, however, I cannot find anything that I would consider notable about the article subject.

The reason, that I bring it up here is because the "claim to fame" seems to be "fraternal accomplishments", particularly, some "firsts" with respect to things done with in the realm of Prince Hall Freemasonry (article lede details all this, so I won't reiterate what they are).

I am also one of the lead editors for the Freemasonry WikiProject, and generally speaking, the Project takes the viewpoint that accomplishments in the fraternal realm are not acceptable per notability guidelines, because most of the time they are temporary. I certainly feel they are acceptable to add to a person notable for other things ("Roscoe Pound was a founding member of The Harvard Lodge," or "Harry S Truman was Grand Master of Masons in Missouri"), but Pound isn't notable because he founded a Lodge, nor is Truman notable for being Grand Master. Therefore, a temporary appointment (even for a year or more as Grand Master of a jurisdiction) seems closer to a BLP1E than a genuine indicator of notability in the WP sense of things.

However, I would like some outside input on the subject, particularly with respect to this article. Some of this may require some further explanation for clarification, so I will keep an eye out for that if need be. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree... holding an office in a fraternal organization is not on its own enough to say someone is notable enough for a stand alone article. It's a case of being a big fish in a tiny pond. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this general rule... there are a few people who have become notable because of their connection to the fraternal organization in question. These are usually people who either founded the organization in question, or played a major role in its history and development. And in these cases there will be sources that are independent of the individual, and external to the organization, that will have taken note of this fact. And that to me is the key. Someone other than the fraternity needs to have commented fairly extensively on the subjects fraternal connections for us to say that these connections make them notable for a stand alone article.

Now... there are lots of notable people who belong (or belonged) to fraternal organizations. And including a brief note of their membership in a bio article is fine as background information. Memberships in organizations, clubs and societies is often worthy of mention in a bio article. I have no problem with including a short "In 1902, Bobby Biosubject joined the Noble and Fraternal Order of Raccoons, and was elected the order's Grand Poobah in 1927<cite to Raccoon website's listing of past Grand Poobahs>". However, the issue there is verifiability of background info, and not substantiating notability.

As to the specific case of David L. Gray... I agree that his Masonic credentials are essentially puffed up to sound far more impressive than they are. The reality is that he belongs to a few research groups (which anyone can join)... he edited some Masonic news magazines (with small circulations) and he writes blogs (hardly notable). None of it makes him notable unless a reliable independent source has taken note of these facts. As far as I can tell, he does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:SCHOLAR). Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pic

A recently-created account has attempted to add the following phrase to the Somalia article:

"On 2 August 2011, the New York Times published an image referred to by the Huffington Post as a "Graphic photo" depicting a starving Somali child who is in imminent pearl as a result of the civil war. The decision to run the image was said by editors of the times to be "the best choice to bring the faraway crisis into focus for readers.""

The passage above is sourced to this routine news piece. I have tried explaining to the account that:

• per WP:TOPIC, material must actually be on-topic; and the topic of the article is not the pic in question.
• per WP:EVENT, a) "routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance"; b) Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article"; and c) "editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article."
• per WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

Given the above, I would like to know whether or not the quoted passage on what seems to be a fleeting and tangential news item meets the notability and relevance requirements for the article in question. I've tried looking for similar precedents on other country articles, but have been unable to find any. Middayexpress (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I mostly concur that Middayexpress has accurately described the above events. I don't know that it matters, but the quoted text shown above reflects the content as I first edited it. There were subsequent edits to correct some errors and more closely reflect the text within the source. The content which was removed was in this form:

"On 2 August 2011, the New York Times published an image referred to by the Huffington Post as a "very graphic photo" depicting a starving Somali child who is in imminent pearl from "malnutrition" as a result of the civil war. The decision to run the image was said by editors of the Times to be "the best choice to bring the faraway crisis into focus for readers.""

I disagree that it is off topic because it was added into a section of the article titled "Health", which war induced famine and malnutrition seems directly relevant to Somali health. I don't consider this story routine because a major US news paper circumvented their own policy which before today would have precluded them from publishing the image. And it was published on the front page. The story is meant to highlight a crisis which words alone can not depict. And that crisis is in the country which is the subject of the article. I can't believe it would be considered off topic, or of some fleeting value. The final decision belongs to others, because I am finished commenting on the subject, and really don't care if it is replaced or not. I did what I thought was right, and I expended effort to debate my reasoning. That's all I can do, and much more than I thought I would have to. Good luck sorting it out and thanks for considering the issue in my absence. I really have to go to bed. Goodnight. Arkmanda (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few inaccuracies in that statement and quote above that require correcting. First, the crisis in southern Somalia is not the subject of the Huffington Post article linked to above. The topic of that HP article is the sensationalistic photo mentioned in the quote above, as the article's title clearly indicates ("New York Times Runs Graphic Photo Of Starving Somali Child (PHOTO)"). Second, as can easily be seen in the link-through to the article itself [3], the New York Times editors are never quoted as stating that their decision to run the photo was "the best choice to bring the faraway crisis into focus for readers". That's a misattribution. When asked about their reason for publishing the photo, the NYT's executive editor simply indicated that the writers of the original New York Times article in which the photo was featured -- the latter of which, incidentally, doesn't make a meal of the image either; in fact, it doesn't even highlight it for special commentary -- "sent us a harrowing story and vivid, arresting photographs. We put them before the attention of our readers". In other words, the HP piece is a routine "shock" news article, just as I've indicated. As such, the misattributed commentary on the photo is not relevant to the Somalia article as it clearly fails WP:EVENT, WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTNEWS. Middayexpress (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice at the top of this board is also highlighted the following:

"Notability is based on evidence of 'significant coverage' in reliable independent published sources. It is a measure of how much the wider unconnected world has shown significant and likely enduring attention. Independently published sources are crucial and must be available to support an article. You should list the key evidence of reputable journals, independently published books, reputable news and media sources, widely reputed measures of recognition, and other reliable sources, which show 'significant attention' being paid by independent sources to the actual subject of the proposed article. For possible non-notability you should review and summarize the available sources showing why you feel the criteria are not met."

Besides the policies already cited, the passage also appears to fall short of these pre-requirements since the photo story that it discusses has not received significant coverage in reliable independent published sources nor has it garnered enduring individual attention. It fails WP:EFFECT since "a precedent or catalyst for anything else of lasting significance is likely to be notable", which this pic story has not served as; and WP:PERSISTENCE since "notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", something which this shock news item of course hasn't either. Likewise, "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Middayexpress (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have expressed to Middayexpress the inappropriateness of citing notability standards which apply to the subject of the article as evidence that content is to be precluded. this policy clearly shows this to be true. Arkmanda (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The notability standard quoted above was taken from this very board, where no such caveat is specified. So yes, it does apply. As do, according to your link, content policies in general, such as WP:INACCURATE (given the misattributed quote), WP:RELEVANT, and especially WP:NOTNEWS. Middayexpress (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples of WP Articles Barely Meeting the WP Notability Standard

I am rather new to Notability discussions. I have been working on editing the Leonard R. Brand page and the issue of notability has come up. I have noticed that there are many articles with less secondary source evidence of notability than Brand's. Yet, those pages seem to meet the notability standard and go unchallenged. I understand that some pages can be targeted and realize that that is part of the challenge of an open encyclopedia system. It seems to me that there is a minimum threshold of notability and then a more rigorous and ideal form. It seems that we could always demonstrate more notability. In the Brand article, it seems that those who criticize whether he is a notable enough figure have set the standard too high. Can anyone give clear examples of Wikipedia articles which have just squeaked by, so to speak, the Wikipedia notability standards. I realize that notability can be a judgment call and thus depends on consensus or on an experience admin's decision. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When your article is up for deletion, the ONLY thing that matters is whether YOUR article meets policy requirements. Whether OTHER articles do or not is totally immaterial. This request of yours is intellectual dishonest; what you're asking for is advice on how to cheat the system. Hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. You're also forum shopping, which is deeply frowned upon here. Carefully read the relevant policies and stick to them to the letter, and you will have no problems figuring out what's notable and what's not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Dominus, thank you for your thoughts. I don't agree, though. Wikipedia is a system of guided free thought and collaboration. I agree that the article being considered for AfD is under scrutiny for whether it meets policy requirements. Notability is one of those requirements. My interest here is to understand the notability requirements better by comparing articles and AfD keep decisions. The Leonard R. Brand article is my current learning ground. If you have been following that article's talk page debate, you know what I mean. One thing I like about Wikipedia is the opportunity to learn from others. I am seeking to learn more about the WP protocols on Notability. Your accusing me of being intellectually dishonest is incorrect. I should know. I am me. :) Please Assume Good Faith on my part as I do the same for you. I may be intellectually challenged, but I assure you that I am not knowingly intellectually dishonest. If you are interested, I suggest that we work together on the Leonard R. Brand article to improve it to GA status. Anyway, thanks for your input. Best Regards. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't agree, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still incorrect. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why comparatives don't work per policy. I believe the charge of dishonesty stems from the fact that you want to figure out what the "bare minimum" is, and then claim you've met it. Forum shopping is also inappropriate. The best way to learn is to read and understand the policies that govern the project, not to figure out how to get us to keep your stuff. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It certainly addresses the issue I have raised. However, in true Wikipedia fashion it explains the areas of concern well. What the essay says one should not do is simply say this article should be treated exactly the same as the other article. I have made it clear in my discussions that I respect the consensus process and thus every case is unique because of consensus. The essay also says that sometimes it is legitimate to compare articles but for the reasons given, not for just a blanket treating all articles the same. I did find the essay of use in the inherent notability section. They admit that sometimes articles have inherent notability such as articles on high schools. This is of interest to me, because I recently came across a high school that had been nominated for deletion. The Geography of Italy is certainly an article that is inherently notable. Side note: (It seems that rather than thinking things out with me, some editors just want to tell me off, and go on their way. At least you have given the link to study, and I thank you for that.) The 1826 Miller example is just qwirky, IMO. The Giberson article is worthy of comparison, not to suggest anything about Giberson but to understand the process. He certainly is a notable person, but there are many assertions not supported by citations. Perhaps, one doesn't need to give a citation for every assertion. If this is true, it makes article editing somewhat easier. (revised) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• I believe that the Brand article has already met the bare minimum. My honest intention is to thoroughly discuss matters. It is not to find short cuts to save the article. If I was looking for an easy way, I would have quit this four days ago. (Revised) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• I have already discussed the Forum Shopping accusation on the Leonard R. Brand AfD page, at length. There is no need to rehash things here. I have found that seasoned Wikipedia editors, especially those who are veteran admins, are very considerate of the newer editors such as myself. I don't mind you giving your opinions but you are not an authority just because you are talking to me. I do like learning from everyone, and I have already learned some things from you.  :)

Rough Diamonds (EP)

This page features a link to a review on fasterlouder.com.au and the EP in question was featured in the Triple J Hottest 100 of 2004, yet I'm still not sure if it's notable as I've just learned that the Hottest 100 is a single-network chart and "generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles". Lachlanusername (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Marisol Deluna

The talk page of Marisol Deluna has been active and concerns have been raised about notability. Involveds include staunch supporters of Deluna in real life and perhaps staunch opponents of Deluna in real life. Eyes welcome. Jesanj (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

Precisely how notable is this company? I find it "barely notable" in my own opinion as almost all the cites are from entertainment blogs, companies which run "official sites" for celebrities, etc. from press releases. A few reliable sources give it a one sentence mention (see Talk:Web Sheriff for discussions thereon) and the BBC identified a quote as being from a person who started the company. Is this sufficient notability? I discount the "client lists" which keep getting added etc. <g>. Eyes and disparate opinions are welcome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

BetaArchive

I am a member of said site, and I can say that, despite receiving 4 Windows 8 betas first, the site is not notable, so I think it isn't worth having an article. Anyone also thinks it's not notable?

--187.14.237.12 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are tons of sites on the same subject as BetaArchive, some even much older than it. And the Windows 8 releases are technically warez, so copyright infringement, so not something Wikipedia should promote. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Deleted Articles

Hello All!

Just to preface this: I'm completely new at online editing, and have never worked on Wikipedia before.

Yesterday I tried to create an article about a company and it was deleted before I even had the opportunity to correct the header. I read the "reasons" that were given for deletion, but I'm struggling with understanding the desires of the people who deleted said article. There are a couple of things that should be known first: A) I'm an employee at the company, and I realize from reading the articles that this would (by the Wikipedia monitors) be considered a COI. However, I only wanted to write a brief history of the company (including current location, who runs the company, when it was founded, etc which I see as completely relevant) and describe what they do in a very general sense. I have been asked multiple times why there wasn't a Wikipedia page about the site, so that people could learn more about it in a non aggressive way. The answer is, I don't know! I don't know why there isn't a Wikipedia page about it, since the goal is to provide a sterile and unbiased view about the history and business of this software company.

I understand that I'm an employee at the company that I wanted to write an article about and that this is something I should be aware of with my editing. I get it. But does that mean that no one at the company can contribute general information to a public webpage about the history of a company? What about our clients? Their families? My family? Can they contribute? Are we just supposed to hope that someday, someone who has never ever interacted with this company will have some free time on their hands and will hear about us through the media articles that have been written (yes, we have had articles written about us by newspapers and blogs) and take it upon themselves to create an article that is going to talk about the completely sterile topic of the history of the company?

It is a relevant, notable company, that is active in its community, and interacts with many different people and companies daily. If I can't write an article about it, fine, but please illustrate to me who would be a likely candidate. I will post the article to my talk page so that others can see it, and provide feedback.

I'm not trying to make a stink about this, but I really would like to better understand the rules, so that I can find a way to make this work. Any (helpful) advice would be much appreciated.

Thank you! Lmcguinness (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you provided the name of the company, and a link to any deletion discussion if such is available (smile). Also, were you sourcing the information you placed in the article? If not, then please be aware that information published on Wikipedia must be not just true, but also easily easily verified. I might suggest that until you have more experience with Wikipedia you focus your contributions on articles that you will clearly not have a COI issue with, to establish that you are a good faith editor and learn more about how WP works in general. Otherwise, I hope you'll find your time here pleasant! Doniago (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the User's Talk page pointing them towards Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have to say I was a little disappointed that somebody hadn't already done this. Instead they were just threatened with a block. HairyWombat 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that that wasn't handled in the best possible manner, though if a page you're adding is deleted, adding it again isn't the best possible response either. The deletion notifications do seem to have clear instructions in terms of avenues of appeal as well. Still, threatening with a block for only 2 speedy deletions seems a little heavy-handed. Hm, it appears the warning editor may have a colorful history themselves. So, overall, not well handled but no permanent damage. Doniago (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Parcak

I am puzzling over whether the article Sarah Parcak is notable or not. Dr. Parcak's research has appeared on a BBC TV programme and elsewhere, so her research is notable. But does that make Dr. Parcak notable? HairyWombat 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, as that person's research is who that person is. WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E provide some guidance on this matter, but I don't think they apply when the 'event' is that person's own work. Besides, I can't see "Sarah Parcak's research" as being a viable alternative title. -- œ^™ 05:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Poems by People?

Would an article about Poems by People by considered "notable"? Or does the site still need to grow more? --97.118.81.228 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As you will read, it is not the size of the concern that matters but the number of references in secondary sources. I tried to find secondary sources for Poems by People, but was unable to find any. Unless others can do better then there isn't a hope in hell. HairyWombat 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Principality of Hungary an unwanted fork?

This theme is an unwanted fork according to user RHaworth. The page is redirected. Prior to the Christian Kingdom of Hungary, there was a long period when Hungary existed as a tribal confederation, a pagan Principality.[4] [5]There are lots of source about it. We are talking about more than 100 years. This principality was the hinterland of Hungarian raids and was the home of 7 Hungarian tribes. There is no valid reason to keep this page redirected. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Talk:Principality of Hungary and Talk:History of Hungary#Principality of Hungary. User Fakirbakir is a contributor to both these discussions. I don't see how a separate third discussion here would be helpful. Instead, people who are interested should contribute to Talk:History of Hungary#Principality of Hungary. HairyWombat 22:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

over 9000 article

Is the internet meme Over 9000! notable enough for its own article? Here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI --Stuvaco922 (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this paper on the subject, which references the phrase. I also found this wip from a user who also wanted to create the article. I was unable to find a significant number of sources referring to this meme, so perhaps a section on the Vegeta article would suffice. Also see [6] --Odie5533 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

SEO consultants

These people's page don't appear notable. The references are questionable and shaky and written in promoting manner as if they're LinkedIn pages of the people named.

• Brett_Tabke
• Barry_Schwartz_(technologist)
• Vanessa_Fox Referenced by spam links
• Bruce_Clay written like a resume
• Jeremy_Schoemaker

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for cleanup templates, such as: {{like resume}}, {{cleanup-spam}}, {{notability}}, {{puffery}}, {{BLP sources}}. You can find the full list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. In addition, consider leaving a short note on the talk page describing the issue. HairyWombat 15:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wyngle

Wyngle (www.wyngle.com.au) is a new concept in ecommerce which launched in Australia last week. It is a company I work for and was keen (now that we've been covered in the press) to begin researching how to go about placing an article on Wikipedia. I believe our founder attempted to write an article earlier today that was deleted by a moderator for advertising/promotion. Any information I can receive from the Wikipedia community (being a first-time contributor myself) would be much appreciated. All press articles available by google search or looking at press section on the website. Socal3Rob (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As you will read, what matters is the number of references in secondary sources. Press reports generated by company press releases don't count. In general, new companies are not notable. I would suggest you wait a while. HairyWombat 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt input 'Hairy'. How many references like the ones from this article (here), and additional similar articles are needed before we consider re-submitting the article? Socal3Rob (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no specified number, and it it a matter of quality as well as quantity. The guidelines state, "... significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Follow the links under "reliable" and "secondary sources" to understand these terms. That's it really. HairyWombat 02:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We have been covered in a a national Australian newspaper 'The Age' (here). Would it make sense to now apply for an article. Socal3Rob (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This second article is not about Wyngle, so it doesn't count. Please read the guidelines. HairyWombat 04:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Playmanitarian

I would like to include a new definition into Wikipedia, as follows:

Playmanitarian

Noun. An individual who engages in enjoyable and entertaining past-times or activities that are also designed to contribute towards the greater good of society and the world. The term refers to the awakening of a new world consciousness that spreads the notion of fun as being inextricably linked with a feel-good factor.

Derived from: An extrapolation of ‘Humanitarian’ – one who is inclined to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations. This term has been coined by the company TrashCanKidz (for whom I work) with reference to their product offering viz. online game for children linked with a retail offering through which no less than 20% of the TrashCanKidz revenue is channeled into a Trust - EarthKidz International, towards alleviating the plight of the millions and millions of orphaned and street children throughout the world. Users have the opportunity to nominate the project they would like to support through their participation and transactions.

We are currently finalizing the websites for both TrashCanKidz and EarthKidz International - www.trashcankidz.com and earthkidzinternational.com, respectively - and invite you to see really what the company is about!

I hope this is the right place to submit my word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermi angelucci (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we don't do new words. Please see WP:NOT#OR. HairyWombat 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried and Roy: Masters of the Impossible

I am trying to start a page for a graduate class assignment. I noticed there was once a page for this subject already and it was deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siegfried_%26_Roy:_Masters_of_the_Impossible&action=edit&redlink=1) I would still like to create a page for this animated collection. I would like to post a synopsis for each episode and a commentary about why the show began. If this is not acceptable, please let me know. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muuadeeb (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The last article was deleted way back in 2005 because it contained no meaningful content. Therefore, this does not preclude trying again. There already exists an article on Siegfried & Roy, the performers. Your page would be about the animated TV series, so I guess the appropriate guidelines would be Wikipedia:Notability (films). HairyWombat 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource Space Model

An IP (Special:Contributions/159.226.43.35) has been adding references to the work of a computer scientist named Zhunge Hai to a large number of articles. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has written about the "resource space model" besides this scientist and his collaborators, and a large portion of the citations for these works come from the same group. Several editors, including myself, have reverted these additions as non-notable but they are constantly re-added.

Articles in question: Faceted search, Faceted classification, Resource Space Model, Digital ecosystem, Cyber-physical system, Knowledge Grid, Typed link#Semantic link

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A13ean (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "Users seeking advice and opinions on notability and whether or not a topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for its own 'stand-alone' Wikipedia article, can ask on this noticeboard." The only stand-alone article, Resource Space Model, seems notable. Although all eleven references in the article have the same lead author, many are articles in peer reviewed journals so are solid references. HairyWombat 03:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I'm afraid this is probably not the right venue. A13ean (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Notice that on the latter, at the top, it states, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page." This looks like good advice. HairyWombat 15:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Rodney Watts

From Vincennes, Indiana Rodney is a Country Music Entertainer and member of the United States Army. He has opened for country music artists, Kenny Chesney, Gary Allen, and Comedian Rodney Carrington, just to name a few. He was interviewed by Kix Brooks for his top 40 radio show. Rodney recently played at the Salute the Troops Concert, during the Week of the Eagle at Fort Campbell, KY. (Aug 2009) He performed among acts, such as Carrie Underwood, Hank Williams Jr, Jake Owen, John Rich and Rodney Adkins. He felt a great honor to Salute the Troops among such great talent. Rodney says, “My dream is to keep writing and performing for the soldiers around the world to bring them hope.” His motto is “Singing for the American Soldier.” Rodney is first and foremost supported by God and Family. They give him the strength and hope to follow his dream. Please check out Rodney’s NEW ALBUM, WHO I AM!!! Also check Rodney out at www.rodneywatts.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodwatts1234 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:MUSICBIO. It does not look hopeful. HairyWombat 07:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Also might be a WP:CONFLICT to list yourself here. --MTHarden (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Traktor

A previous page for Traktor was proposed for deletion and the consensus was to replace it with a redirect to Tractor ( Archive of Proposed deletion of Traktor (Feb 4 2005) ). Since then a new page Traktor on a different topic has replaced the redirect. I believe the new page is a candidate for deletion due to a lack of notability, more specifically, the page reads like a marketing brochure and provides product reviews for external sources. Since this is a brand new page, is it eligible for Proposed Deletion? are my reasons to propose deletion sufficient? HectorH (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2005 article is on a different topic than this new page (farm machinery instead of DJ software), so the previous discussion is not relevant. Any page is eligible for proposed deletion. The page certainly needs improvement but, in itself, that is not grounds for deletion. Lack of notability is, and the key to notability is reliable independent sources. (I guess the most appropriate guideline would be Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).) If you seek better sources and there are none then that would be grounds for deletion. HairyWombat 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[7]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated as it involves a the notability of the individuals included on the list. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Short Stack Article - Request for speedy deletion marked as Vandalism

Hi,

I marked the article Short Stack for speedy deletion as it has far too much detail for band only relatively little popularity. Current page as it stands page puts undue weight to bands notoriety and is unfair to the other band with same name. The idea was to delete the article then create a stub under a slightly different article name with disambigs for similarly titled band and concepts (detailed in my talk history in talk page). I would have thought a discussion would happen on talk page re db-band and it would be delete or not (i would have respected the decision).

However an editor has marked both the db-band and my reasons in talk page as vandalism and reverted both.

Editor in question is memphisto. At the very least he should not have deleted my talk entries.

Please help with the dispute.

180.148.124.237 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines for editing Talk pages are WP:TPO. Note that new sections should be added to the bottom of the page. Also, please sign your posts using "~~~~". I have restored your contribution. The appropriate guidelines for the article are Wikipedia:Notability (music). Criteria include:

• "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."—a number one album in Australia.
• "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country."—a platinum album in Australia.

The article needs work, including more references, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Your nomination of the article for speedy deletion was clear vandalism. Please desist. HairyWombat 18:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick London Cartoonist & Clothing Designer

Londons Times Cartoons is a popular offbeat cartoon founded by Hattiesburg, Ms-born Rick London [Go To Hattiesburg Wiki Page], as well as his verified cartoon website Go To Londons Times Cartoons Site His cartoon and design work has been featured in USA Today [Go To USA Today Article]. London's work is noted on his social media and has been verified by Twitter on his page at their site [Go To Rick London Verified Twitter Page]. His first book "Our Favorites: 13th Anniversary Of Londons Times is carried by Barnes & Noble [Go To Rick London's Book At Barnes & Noble].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricklondondesigns (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people), an article about yourself would not be appropriate. HairyWombat 00:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reks

Reks, born Corey Isiah Christie, is an underground rapper born in Lawrence, MA. Best known for his work with DJ Premier "Say Goodnight" and 2011's "25th Hour" gave Reks more fame as he refers to himself as "the best rapper that nobody has heard about."

"Born and raised in Lawrence, MA, street lyricist Corey Isiah Christie, better known as just Reks, started out as a breakdancer in his teens and was part of a local B-boy crew called Funk Town Connection. By the time he entered college at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Reks had built a reputation for himself in the local Boston rap scene, but then eventually quit school to begin recording for Brick Records. A few 12" singles, "I Could Have Done More" and "Fearless," arrived first in early 2001, before Brick issued his debut LP, Along Came the Chosen, later that year. A cult favorite in Beantown rap circles, the album earned Reks nominations for Hip-Hop Album and Artist of the Year by the Boston Music Awards. Even with all the accolades as well as press features running in Source, XXL, Vibe, and URB, Reks' career didn't ascend to the national stage. In fact, he self-released his second album, Rekless (2003), and had no distribution other than from the trunk of his car. In 2004, he turned to the mixtape circuit, releasing Happy Holidays (2005) and the Rash Music series, the latter of which was under his new group, M Diesel (which included Lucky Dice and Chi Knox). In this time period, he also hooked up with fellow Lawrence, MA, native and national mixtape guru Statik Selektah, eventually signing on to the DJ's ShowOff Records imprint. Reks made several appearances on Selektah's Spell My Name Right (2007) LP as well as on material by the DJ's up-and-coming protégéTermanology. Executive produced by Selektah, Reks' ShowOff debut, Grey Hairs, arrived in 2008." ~ Cyril Cordor, Rovi (taken from AOL music biography)

Reks's most recent album R.E.K.S (Rhythematic Eternal King Supreme) was well received by critics and fans alike.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.211.53 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate guidelines for an article are Wikipedia:Notability (music). It does not look hopeful. HairyWombat 00:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Galloping Ghost airplane

Comments welcomed in the merge discussion on the aircraft involved in the Reno air race crash. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

A separate content fork regarding Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie was created out of a section in the main Cat Stevens entry, as a couple of editors objected that inclusion in the main BLP article gave it "undue weight". The problem is that the content fork consists of extensive quotations, verbatim, as opposed to extensive RS sourcing concerning a number of people in relation to it. Other controversial incidents, for example the Dixie Chicks comments regarding George W. Bush are similar in scope, but editors haven't justified a separate content fork. What is the threshold for the notability of an incident to justify a content fork? I note that The Satanic Verses does have a content fork related to The Satanic Verses controversy, which is relevant, as it concerns many individuals and a variety of incidents. In contrast, this content fork for Cat Stevens is really concerning one individual, their remarks, and the ensuing fallout over the years, and all it does is make space for extensive quotations, nothing more.Jemiljan (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:Cat Stevens#Rushdie redux, and a remerge of the fork with the main article is currently being discussed at Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie#Merge with Cat Stevens. User Jemiljan is a contributor to both these discussions. I don't see how a separate third discussion here would be helpful. Instead, people who are interested should contribute to Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie#Merge with Cat Stevens. HairyWombat 04:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, for the issue of notability is at the heart of the matter. Discussions on the relevant talk pages are not a place to provide criteria for what constitutes notability per se, but this talk page clearly is.Jemiljan (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. HairyWombat 16:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)