This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Paul Loeb is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The Wikipedia page for Paul Loeb has been completely re-done. The intent was to remedy the comments made earlier. In particular:
This article appears to be written like an advertisement. -- The entire article was re-written from more first hand information. I don't believe it reads as much like an advertisement. However, the basis for Paul being included is both his recognition in the media, and his books and articles, so those are still there. Let me know if this should change.
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. -- Paul has made notable contributions to the area of dog/animal training. These contributions are documented in his books, and referenced in at least 2 referenced news articles and several non-referenced Professional opinions. I don't know if the non-referenced items were written. I could delete them if that is appropriate.
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. -- This comment I think is fixed, but I'm not completely sure.
I didn't see this before posting to your talk page, Gap1234 - sorry about that. I should have checked here first. To address your points:
The article is very much like an advert, still, I'm afraid. I have tried to remove some of the more blatant promotion but in parts it does read like a puff piece, and there are still peacock terms in the article. I appreciate that you have tried to make it impartial, but unfortunately there was still a lot of text after your rewrite that only served to put Loeb in a positive light (such as "This brought his considerable talents to national attention" or "Never before or since has anyone taken groups of aggressive dogs with their owners and successfully solved these problems, and solved them quickly"). The inclusion of many minor details of Loeb's career also contributes to this impression.
Please also note that if this article is based on what Loeb himself has told you (that's how I interpret "first hand information"), it means that a) there is a strong conflict of interest which is something that tends to work against neutrality, and b) what you are basing it on is primary sources rather than secondary, independent sources, which is what Wikipedia articles must be based on. More sources are necessary, still.
A person's notability is based on whether they have been mentioned extensively in sources independent of the person himself. An author's books don't make him notable by themselves - the news articles however are probably reliable sources, although I am not sure whether there is enough coverage to actually make the guy notable. I am not going to nominate the article for deletion, because I think he just passes the notability threshold, but since I'm not sure I feel the tag should stay until other editors have weighed in on this. It's not as if the presence of the tag harms the article - on the contrary, it makes it more likely that other uninvolved editors will help improve it.
