Help desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 21

William C. Rader

I tried to contact you at the email address you have provided, info-en-vwikimedia.org, but it my email provider does not recognize that address. I hope someone can help me here. I have no idea how to make ammendments.

The information on Dr William C Rader has been drastically edited. This is about the 4th time Rader or his minions have changed information to portray him in a favorable light. <text removed> Please restore the original information that was on Wiki before it was edited. <text removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.250.198 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's post is essentially one giant BLP violation. I will leave it to an admin or more experienced editor to decide how to deal with all his comments/claims, which are completely unsourced and are full of personal attacks (remove, redact, etc.?). --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the article currently has two separate leads: the current one and the original one, which is now the History section. Coincidentally, the article was created four years ago today. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any answers about any emails that the OP might have received but a look at the articles edit history shows that it has been edited by a series of SPA's over the years. It is hard to say if they have any COI or have added any BLP violations to the article and I don't have the time or expertise to sift through everything so I started this thread Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#William C. Rader at the BLP project to see if anyone can find whether the article is legit or not. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed much of the content of the post per WP:BLP. I will look at the article but this cannot remain here. Second, this thread and the one I answered above appear completely separate, not just by content but by comparison of writing stye. The clincher is that the IP addresses are a few hundred miles apart (one in NY and one in Maryland) so all indications are that this is an unrelated post without a section header, which I have provided.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for dealing with the BLP violations. And great eye on noticing the separate threads. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medstudent213 gutted the article with this edit on January 17. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. I have reverted to that version, though the article still bears all the hallmarks of a battle between sides, all disjointed with twenty cites for one fact and so on. Maybe someone should post to WP:NPOVN, or maybe WP:FTN is right for this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. I try. Haha. In the four years the article's been up, it's been essentially gutted many times. I'm not sure how many of those editors may be the same person. I agree with you about the reporting, but I'll leave that to editors far more experienced than me on issues like this. Perhaps someone like... um... you. :P --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The email address shown at Wikipedia:Contact us is info-enwikimedia.org. The email address in your post here contains an extra "v". Is that the address you were trying to contact? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the copy/paste issue brought up at commons and metawiki. Some pages don't allow the @ to be copied because of bots mining sites for email spam. It is fixed at commons after a big mess of many lost licence permissions and may need fixing on pages here as well. I think it was agreed that bot filters solve the issue. info-enwikimedia.org I just pasted from Wikipedia:Contact us with no @ showing up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to an article

Hello there,

I'm trying to get some information added to the article on the Big Mac, located at Big Mac.

I listed the additional information on the Big Mac "Talk" page, along with referenced citations to support my additions. Yet it doesn't seem like anybody has reviewed nor added my additions to the main article yet.

How can I get these additions to appear in the main article?

Thanks, Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty321 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scotty. Your request didn't include an edit request template at the top of your comments, so I just added it for you. (The article is semi-protected.) I also moved your signature to the right place. You had it in the thread title (heading) instead of at the end of your comments. Also, you want to sign any comments you make anywhere on Wikipedia with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:SIGHOW. Good luck. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my interjection, @76.189.111.199, but "sign any comments you make anywhere on Wikipedia" could be misinterpreted as Jonathan Chaplin (talk · contribs) did in this edit to Roy Chaplin. Specifically, we do not sign edits we make to articles such as Big Mac but we do indeed sign any comments (as you say) to article talk-pages such as Talk:Big Mac. Once again, sorry for the interjection --Senra (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm confident that most editors would understand what is my meant by "comments" (as opposed to edits in an article's mainspace). For the record, the term "comments" is not simply "as [I] say", but also as the guideline I included says ("At the end of your comments simply type four tildes"). But if you felt it necessary to interject your clarification and it makes you feel more comfortable, then I can certainly appreciate that. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vacation9 has completed your request. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations

Resolved

"Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations: Republican opposition in the United States: Although US President Josh Zamorano had secured his proposal..."

Just who is "US President Josh Zamorano"? I he does indeed exist, this will have a major impact on every US law passed since the end of WWI and make Barack Obama the 45th President of the United States instead of the 44th. Do some constructive editing because of some 12 year old hacker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.212.186 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has fixed it. But be careful not to make edits like this in an article. Just make the fix instead. ;) Thanks. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image reuse help

I added these two images from plos papers to the wikimedia commons. I was not sure if all media in plos articles (unless stated otherwise) was CC-BY 2.5 by default. could some one with more exp check this out. Thanks. Staticd (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because your question invites the possibility that the images are not actually free, I have changed them from display into links.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'll respond at your talk page.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now think it is OK (see your talk for details) but the license should be changed from CC BY 2.5 to CC BY 3.0 US--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the 2.5 version because of this page (2.5) [1]. which seems different from the license given here [2] (3.0) the article(s) just say(s) cc-by. Thanks for the help and do I still go ahead and change the licence? Staticd (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the text on that page which says "Creative Commons Attribution License." and click on it., you will be led to this page, which is why I suggested using (CC BY 3.0 US). Yes, I think you should make the change.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create corporate account or continuing using the original account (reputation etc.,)

Hello,

Thinking it would be a "one time thing" I used a personal account I created to edit our Wikipedia "corporate information" page. Now I have reputation there having made edits etc., and have run into a vandal we need to deal with.

Is it best to continue using my current account during this unfortunate situation or will a new account be alright to raise a complaint send warnings etc.,

I'm thinking I should keep the old one as that has the history of edits etc., and would have more "weight" if we have to lodge a complaint on that special complaints page. (after we warn the person)

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Rfrster (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't create a corporate account (see WP:CORPNAME).

Secondly, User:Orangemike is taking a hack (in the plant pruning sense) at Ontario College of Teachers. It appears that the majority of the edits by User:EllenWells are not appropriate. Please take a look at it in the current form.

Thirdly, it appears that you may also have a Conflict of Interest, if so, you may want to declare the fact on your user page.Naraht (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and sorry to see that you were rather hastily blocked by OM for your perfectly acceptable username, which you specify above is a personal account, and in no way appears to represent the Ontario College of Teachers.

As to your questions above: no, do not create another account to edit from as this is considered sock puppetry, except in some very specific situations (see Wikipedia:MULTIPLE)
and do not create an account that either uses the name of your organisation or implies shared use (see Wikipedia:CORPNAME and Wikipedia:NOSHARE)

Good luck! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the block was a mistake on my part, and has been reverted. Please do see, though, my advice on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, well that's all sorted then. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers and thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfrster (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This about the Vietnam page.

I noticed a small error on the page referring to Pro-Communist factions. The error is that the U.S.S.R. is not listed at all. What bothers me is that the U.S.S.R. was the Vietcong's main supplier and ally in this war so I am asking that you please change this as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.22.222 (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which page you are refering to. The USSR wasn't a faction per-se in Vietnam, but as you said, it was a supplier. If the list is of factions, then I don't think it should be listed. If it is of participants, there way be an appropriate way to refer to it.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to guess what you are referring to. It doesn't appear to be the Vietnam page and the expression "Pro-Communist factions" doesn't appear in Wikipedia at all. Let me make a wild guess: Are you referring to "Communist forces" in the infobox in Vietnam War? Right below it says "Supported by:" and lists Soviet Union, a name for U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:AFC

Say I have completed an article in my own user space and I want to make it go live. Should I always submit it to AfC or can I just create the new article and paste the contents? The AfC process can take more than a week while simply creating the new article takes no time. Is it somewhat mandatory for an article to go through AfC? Regards Gaba p (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. AfC is only a requirement for editors who don't have accounts and thus can't create new articles on their own. It can also be a good tool for new editors who may need some extra help to prevent the hasty deletion of articles they've created due to problems like lack of sources, etc., but you've been here 3 years and I assume you know the rules for the most part. Definitely feel free to just BOLDly create the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you Thibbs! Regards Gaba p (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Note that you also might want to simply move the userspace article to its articlespace name. This preserves the history of your edits in creating it. -Thibbs (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep that in mind. Cheers and thanks again. Gaba p (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page approval - HazelMerlino/Landmark Plc

Hi there,

I was hoping someone could have a look at my page that I have created to see if it meets the wiki article publishing criterias and will be accepted or if I need to change/alter things in order for it to be accepted? Creating User:HazelMerlino/Landmark Plc HazelMerlino (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should post your request at Articles for Creation. The folks there will be able to review your work and perhaps point out areas where it needs improvement. Remember to leave a link to your page, by the way. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "Submit the page!" link and it will be added to the queue for review. You should be aware that the queue is backlogged and it will probably be at least a week before the volunteer reviewers get to it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military Medal recipients

how would i find out what medals and for what my father recieved during his military career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.77.1 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your father's name? The Wikipedia Reference Desk is a good place to ask questions like this if you think that the information might be on Wikipedia, but if not then I think your best bet would be to contact your local Veterans Affairs group since they keep track of this kind of information and would be able to help you find the answer to this kind of question. If you need any further help please don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Veterans Affairs facility locator for you here. From your IP's geolocation it looks like there may be more than one American Legion group working in your area as well. Both of these might be good resources for you to find this information. Let me know if you need further help or if either of these leads work out for you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the NPRC website. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article on Christopher More

I'd like to create an article on Sir Christopher More (b. in or before 1483, d. 1549), for whom there's an article in the online ODNB, but when I tried to create an article with the title Christopher More just now, I was advised at this link [3] that an earlier article with that title had been deleted. How can I determine whether the deleted article pertained to the Christopher More I'm interested in writing an article on? Or should I just ignore the fact that there was an earlier article which was deleted, and perhaps title the new article Christopher More (died 1549) so that the new article won't run into redirect problems? Any help with this would be appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier articles were someone of that name trying to post his CV. He was not so persistent as to get the title salted, so there is nothing to stop you creating your article at Christopher More. Good luck with it! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, the title was salted (create-protected); but I have unsalted it, so you can go ahead. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Sir Christopher More person is the father of William More (died 1600). I would use the William More article as a guide, especially as it appears that the Burke 1838 reference also includes information on Sir Christopher Moore. I very much agree that this article should be created. I think that any of the King's/Queen's Remembracer's of the Exchequer at that time are notable. I would suggest writing the article in your sandbox and then moving it when you've got it done. I'm not sure what Wikiprojects are suitable for help though. :( I don't think the died needs to be used since there doesn't appear to be another person with that spelling, but that's pretty minor. Naraht (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the help with this! NinaGreen (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Christopher More (b. in or before 1483, d. 1549) is notable as he has an entry in the ODNB ("More, Sir Christopher". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/77080. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)) which, incidentally, has some out-of-copyright material about his son at ODNB archive:More, SIR William (1520–1600). I hope that helps --Senra (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! I skip read @NinaGreen's post and missed the ODNB reference. Sorry. Still, you can use my {{cite ODNB}} to save you a little work with your article. Good luck --Senra (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need info updated

I work for The Greene County Partnership, which is the chamber of commerce for Greeneville and Greene County, Tennessee. When our President noticed that most of your demographic and economic data for Greeneville was inaccurate, he became worried because Wikipedia is a common starting point for people looking to move here or business consultants looking to bring industry here. He asked if we could update this information, but after reading all your guidelines, I noticed that any changes I make could be deemed a "conflict of interest." We want to make sure that we follow your guidelines (I can tell from articles I just read on your site that this is a big issue), but it is very important that the correct information is presented.

The edits I was hoping to make were in the Demographic section and the Economic section. The demographics are old numbers, from the 2000 census, and if your policy is to only use census numbers then the 2010 census should be used. If you allow more current numbers, our database website (GreeneCountyProspector.com) can provide 2012 numbers (this is updated quarterly I believe). We would obviously prefer to use the 2012 numbers, but will completely understand if you need to use actual census info.

As far as the Economic section, there is much to be added. It only lists the three companies headquartered in Greeneville, which in itself is inaccurate because Greenbank has now been bought out by Capital Bank and is no longer headquartered in Greeneville. But the main issue is that there is much more going on with Greeneville's economy than you give us credit for and we would like a chance to have that information made available to the public. Although we do have a high unemployment rate (10.4 percent), we have had numerous industrial expansions over the past year (more than $40 million in capital investment) and have even announced two new major projects within the past two years (with a combined capital investment of more than $240 million). We also have a very active Tourism department that can provide you with economic impact numbers for various events that we hold in Greeneville. There is obviously too much information that needs to be added for me to list here, but the point I'm trying to make is that we have all the information that you might need and can be a valuable source if you will allow us to be. We are not trying to "fluff" or "put a positive spin" on Greeneville, we simply want the correct and current information presented.

I am listing the URLs for the Greeneville, Tennessee article and the Greene County, Tennessee article.

Greeneville, Tennessee

Greene County, Tennessee

I look forward to your response and hope that you might allow us to work with your editors to make certain the public has reliable information.

Thank you,

The Greene County Partnership 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)GreeneCountyPartnership (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously recognise the potential conflict of interest issue here. As I think you know, Wikipedia requires new material and additions or corrections to existing material to be cited to reliable sources. In this particular case, be WP:BOLD and make the census changes to the latest official census statistics (I think that is 2010?). If you made them to your own organisations statistics, your edits would be open to accusations of a conflict of interest; better to stay on the safe side of such issues. Your edits should remain neutral and therefore maintaining reliably sourced and up-to-date unemployment figures, however negative, would be good. Remember what Wikipedia is not: it is not a promotional tool. Good luck and ask here or on my talk-page if you need further help --Senra (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your username may be in violation of our Wikipedia:Username policy and as a result, it may get blocked. If/when that happens, simply create a compliant user-name and post here so that we can maintain continuity of discussions --Senra (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senra was implying this in the above comments, but just to be clear: you should make sure to include a citation to the material you are updating as well. So if you're changing demographic information to match the 2010 census then you have to include citations to the 2010 census. For more information on how to make citations, you can visit WP:CITE. -Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibbs: Erm. He he. I thought that is what I said when I stated " Wikipedia requires new material and additions or corrections to existing material to be cited to reliable sources". Still, it never hurts to be clearer :) --Senra (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that. Anyway I guess the takeaway message, GreeneCountyPartnership, is that the sourcing is the most important part of the whole matter. -Thibbs (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, possibly GreeneCountyPartnership (talk · contribs) or others, have been changing demographic data in the Greeneville, Tennessee article leading to citation inconsistencies as I setout here. This problem needs addressing --Senra (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Done --Senra (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the comment about not using a county's (or city's) own statistics, cited to the official local government web site. These certainly would seem to be reliable sources, and more timely and accurate than a decennial Federal census. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio loop

See Talk:3D printing last section for diffs. It seems the source paraphrased our wikipedia article and then a recent change copyied their sentence exactly. They probably got the bare facts from our article, did their own research and then corrected our facts. Will a simple paraphrase by us fix and cite them as source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're paraphrasing Wikipedia then they cannot be used as a reliable source. -Thibbs (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really paraphrasing because it is a common sentence: "The term 3D printing was coined by..." etc. They seem to attribute it to the same person as an IP suggested on the talk page. Should we AGF that they did investigate and find the correct attribution? We could also state the source as making the claim and not us. The source does seem RS as an online engineering magaizine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGF doesn't apply outside of Wikipedian-to-Wikipedian interactions so it's not relevant here, but I understand the point you're making. One would certainly hope that an RS would at least double check the unsourced claims in Wikipedia. Then again, unless there's proof that they did I think it would be much better to find another source if possible. Violations of WP:CIRCULAR damage the credibility of both parties. This is really something that should be discussed on the talk page at 3D printing or at WP:RS/N, though. If the decision is made to retain the ref then it should be the result of a clear consensus and there is no need for us to rephrase our sentence. Since ours predates theirs there is no way that we are violating copyright. -Thibbs (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, whatever the loop involved, we must never cite a source we have not read ourselves. By all means cite the online engineering magazine as a source providing it is WP:RS. If unsure, ask at WP:RSN --Senra (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does look an awful lot like the source copied Wikipedia, though. If that's true it shouldn't be used even if it's an RS. My understanding of cases like this is that an RS can't whitewash unreliable info just because it's an RS. I'm not interested in getting involved in the matter, but I think it should definitely be discussed at talk and possibly at RS/N. -Thibbs (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. It reminds me of a credit I was short on to graduate from highschool. I went to the guidance consellor, the department head, and my homeroom teacher and said "it is alright with them if it is alright with you" to replace X extra credit with Y lacking credit. It worked well and they closed that loophole the following year.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I've found peer reviewed articles by academics that have clearly copied Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia slang and memes?

I know there is WP:ABC, but is there a page that specifically addresses Wikipedia slang and memes? This might be helpful to some editors. I recently saw a post that read something like "It's quacking." While I personally know what this means, it isn't the sort of thing a random reader or editor might know about. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:GLOSSARY as well, but that doesn't cover quacking. -Thibbs (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Exactly what I was looking for. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia:Slang redirects to WP:GLOSSARY, though, I think that'll be your most likely source for this kind of info. I guess it may have to be updated. -Thibbs (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can often find something by entering it after WP: in the search box, for example WP:QUACK. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiz Khalifa edit request

If anyone would be kind enough to handle this edit request it would be much appreciated. I am the edtior who requested protection for the article, so now I can't edit it. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, FreeRange. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating New Article of Living Person

I would like to add an article of a living person who appears on a number of pages in reference, but does not have a page. Content concerning the person is inserted in other pages, but can be given more notable discussion on his own page. How does one decide of person if interests is relevant enough?Gray106 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gray. The person needs to notable, which is a test used to decide if a subject is worthy of having its own article. See WP:NOTE and WP:PEOPLE. If it's an athlete, see WP:ATHLETE. Within WP:PEOPLE, there are subcategories for the person's field, such as entertainers, politicians, academics (professors, etc.), creative professionals (authors, filmmakers, artists, etc.), and criminals, etc. Each will lead you to more specific information and criteria to determine if the person may be notable. Hope this helps. If you want, feel free to tell us who the person is. Is it Stephen Xenakis? I noticed you made this edit in which you removed all of the content about him from Michael Welner. Be careful not to remove all the content about someone from an article solely because you think they may be notable enough to have their own article. Good luck! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been on a sebatical, but I wanted to thank you for addressing this question. I will leave the creating BLP's alone for now. Also, to clarify, I removed the content because it offered nothing biographical to the person featured in the BPL. It was however biographical for Stephen Xenaikis and seemed intersting enough to be in its own wiki BLP surrounded by other notable info. That said, this is resolved for now. Thank you again!Gray106 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]