User talk:DogBehaviorPro

December 2020
Hello. Your recent edit to List of dog trainers appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. All those added I've confirmed as qualifying for stand alone articles. Not sure who you are referring to? Also, are you saying I need to create pages for each of them before they can be allowed on this list?? DogBehaviorPro (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of dog trainers, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. ''Please stop adding entries that do not have articles to show their notability. See WP:WTAF'' Meters (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. We don't include unsourced entries on lists of notable people simple because an editor claims to know that they are notable. Meters (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I see that I used an incorrect template with my second warning. It should have bee a disruptive edit. I hope that didn't cause any confusion. Meters (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

So I shall create pages for each of the entries I had made when I have more time. However I do not want to find them all deleted if I do that as this takes a lot of my time. I am not simply making "claims" as you stated; these people are in fact renowned/important in the industry. DogBehaviorPro (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are claiming that these people are notable. You have not even provided sources to show us that they work in the field, let alone that they are notable in the field. For that matter, you have not even shown that these people actually exist, not that I doubt it.
 * If you think they are notable then write the articles. If you can show that the subjects "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" the articles should survive, but I can't guarantee that some or even all of those articles will not be deleted. Writing an acceptable biography from scratch is not easy, particularly for a new editor. See WP:N and WP:BIO for info on notability and biographies, and WP:V and WP:RS for verifiability and reliable sourcing. Meters (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I see no sources listed in the list we're discussing and that is why I added none. Of course I know that sources go in articles. DogBehaviorPro (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the people in that list are blue links, which means that they already have Wikipedia biographies. Nobody should be added to that list unless an acceptable Wikipedia biography exists. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)