Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)

Bernie Siegel

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel
• Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)

Bernie Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable individual. No significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Pretty obvious non-notability. A small amount of references by similarly non-notable authors in long-forgotten alt-health books is all that scholar turns up. Yet another example of an old AfD not actually bothering to check whether usable sources exist, and just saying that they did a search, got some results, therefore, keep. Further, what sources are used seem to be being abused: Off-hand mentions of him are being used to make direct claims, using WP:SYNTH. 86.** IP (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - have added a couple of sources. Siegel is an extremely well-known new age writer and speaker, and is considered among the most influential people in that area, as shown by the Watkins list. I carry no brief for his brand, but his name is instantly recognisable, and I was surprised to see it on the AfD list. The article was not ideal but the man is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure such obscure, fringe sources are really enough to show notability. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• • You have to be kidding! The Watkins list is pure nonsense - it claims that Bernie Seigel at #25 is higher ranked in spirtual influence than Joseph Ratzinger #45 who just happens to be the leader of the Catholic Church and Rowan Williams who is the Archbishop of Cantebury the theological leader of all Anglicans. The Watkins list is definitely not a reliable source.--Salimfadhley (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Spiritual/New Age source ≠ fringe source. The two sources are good, they meet the criteria for reliable sources. I am impressed by his position (25) on Watkins' list. Looks like a well-thought out and educated list, and I must note that we have articles on many of the listees, right down to #100 Marion Woodman. I would like to see at least one more substantive source, since I presume the Watkins' list entry is rather brief (really the magazine with the full list should be cited along with a link to the web page with the top 10). Yworo (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Spirtual/new age sources are fringe sources as the new age movement is a fringe movement (i.e it's a small subculture). I'm not sure what your basis for saying otherwise is. The Marion Woodman article you point out is also poorly sourced and also seems non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's with respect not a fair deduction.

1) Firstly, while New Age is smaller than the market for, say, beer, it consists of at least some millions around the world.

2) Secondly, small does not mean lunatic/extremist fringe, which is what WP:FRINGE is about. New Age is in part a spiritual movement, in part commerce, in part self-help: all being part of normal life, and indeed covered by a detailed and very well-sourced WP article. New Age is not fringe.

3) Thirdly, Siegel is BOTH New Age and Medical, with distinctive and notable features of his own, like his cancer group therapy work. And he is demonstrably well known as a writer and speaker.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be well known for his medical career. WP:FRINGE isn't about lunatics, I suggest you check again. Size isn't too relevant a factor; the creationists movement is also quite large, it is still a fringe movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your prejudices are showing, I'm afraid, and it is not appreciated. Besides, as much as I don't ascribe to their beliefs, the Creationists Movement probably deserves an article, as it is notable. Notability has little to do with scientific or factual basis; if it did, no religions would pass your litmus test, or comedy, or works of fiction. Fringe movements can also be notable, which is why you've heard of them. I'm sure you will find no responsible source (if any source at all) who has called Bernie Siegel a "lunatic"; that is your prejudice based on your personal feelings about his field of interest and profession, and it does not belong in this discourse.Rosencomet (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well lookie here: Creationism HAS an article; a BIG one, with 198 citations. So do Unicorns, the Church of the SubGenius, the Flat Earth Society, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Scientology and a whole lot of other notable subjects you might think are "lunatic", "nonsense", or "fringe". And they just might be, but they're still notable. Just FYI.Rosencomet (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You and Chiswick Chap are the only ones that referred to Bernie Siegel having beliefs that are lunatic or nonsense, I most certainly did not. I fully agree that New Age should have an article even though it is a fringe movement, this isn't an AfD for the New age movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Bernie Seigel is a very well-known New Age author and lecturer. His books, about a dozen of them (plus audiobooks) sell very well, and are all published by major presses rather than vanity presses. I agree with Chiswick Chap; I'm surprised to see him nominated for deletion. I think it's just that this article has been both too short and too neglected. I've improved it a bit.Rosencomet (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence the books sell well, the sources used to establish him as a well-known author and lecturer are fringe sources and seem inappropriate (I've never heard of bigspeak, it doesn't seem notable itself) . I checked out two of his books on Amazon, his ranking for one was 828,891th and for the other over 100 thousandth. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We should not be relying on volatile Amazon figures. Recall that Siegel has been selling books for many years, and all book sales decline (often steeply) with time. However to reply in your terms, his 1988 book Love, Medicine and Miracles was today at #9,133 on amazon.com, not bad for something that's been in print for over 20 years.

BTW there are hundreds of Bernie Siegel citations in the New York Times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked through them? Most seem to be book lists: contrast [1] with [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few to the article with citations. Of course there are many listings of his famous, well-known, celebrated, admired, best-selling books... ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What you have added is a primary sourced sentence and a sentence based on a one line mention of Bernie Siegel which seem undue. Remember that wikipedia is not a newspaper; 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. WP:NOT#NEWS. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

An article in the New York Times regarding 1988 best-sellers states, "The leading nonfiction paperback was Love, Medicine & Miracles, which is a book by Bernie S. Siegel about the importance of the patient's mind and emotions in the treatment of serious illness." and later in the article, "The listings are based on computer-processed sales figures from 3,000 bookstores and from representative wholesalers with more than 28,000 other retail outlets, including variety stores and supermarkets." Rosencomet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete A #9 charting in a NYT sub-chart is not particulary notable. Most of his books did not even chart that high. He's not notable as an author or as an alt-med proponent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The book remained on the bestseller list for over a year. It has been continuously in print since 1988. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That he made it on an nyt bestseller list for 1988 isn't relevant for notability requirements; see WP:AUTHOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This hardly counts as "enduring notability". He has not had a book in the charts for over 20 years. To be continuously in print is meaningless for WP:N since these days books are printed on demand. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the book stayed on the paperback best-sellers list from 1988 at least into 1994. And this wasn't the only book by Siegel to make the list: Peace, Love and Healing was also a best-seller. Rosencomet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I have read on this topic for years and I have never heard of Bernie Siegel, he appears to be not notable, he is a minor new thought writer, there does not appear to be much coverage for his ideas. Article should probably be deleted, theres 1000s of authors out there like him they don't all need a separate article. If he is notable within the field of energy medicine then perhaps he could be mentioned on that article, but as previously mentioned I have never heard of the dude & I am quite well read in this area! GreenUniverse (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how you missed him; I've been reading and working in this field for decades, and he is very well known to me. He's been featured on Oprah, Donahue, and many other prominent talk shows on both TV and radio. His books can be found in self-help and alternative medicine sections of bookstores around the world. He is quoted in other well-known authors' books often. Instead of relying on your memory, why not research it a bit? Do a google search on books mentioning him, or articles printed in magazines and websites in his areas of expertise? Rosencomet (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Do any kind of science books mention him :)... Comet I have looked him up, he seems a very happy chap with a nice message but can you provide any sources for him? I noticed theres a few on google books but I don't think these would count as they are coming from very fringe like books, New York Time is useful, but theres already too many of those. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, let's start with the basics. The article is a biography. Can anyone find a reliable source that talks about when and where he was born and his early life? The above comments regarding how important he is only matters in Wikipedia if a reliable source writes in detail about it. We're not going to reward Siegel with a Wikipedia article for making #25 on a list, how many books he has sold, or who's heard of him. Wikipedia provides content and, unless there is sufficient reliable source material from which to develop an article, then we don't have the makings for a Wikipedia article. And this being the second AfD, arguments such as "we just need to fix it" carry little weight, especially since the first AfD was six years ago and the reliable source info has not yet come forth. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Google news archives gives us 1910 hits. Hard to imagine under what circumstances there aren't enough sources in the google news archives alone to indicate notability.(olive (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
  • That's irrelevant: even the most cursory look at the results shows that most are not the same person as this one. There is, for instance, a wrestling promoter of the same name, as well as a financier. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest a more than cursory look at 1900 hits.(olive (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

WP:GOOGLEHITS is a bad metric for a keep, I suggest you provide specific examples. the first three results appear to be from different Bernie Seigels, I wonder how many of the rest are as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the google hits alone are reason to keep. I am suggesting that within 1900 hits, even a glance indicates there are enough sources to indicate notability.(olive (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

*Comment per advertising this AfD. If we are canvassing editors from NB, only canvassing the Finge Theories NB hardly seems a neutral way to alert Wikipedia editors. I strongly suggest including other notice boards or removing the notice from the Fringe Theories NB. (olive (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly. (olive (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

• Comment It seems people are trawling through the NYT and including even the briefiest of mentions in the article, some of which consistute primary sources and others which seem undue like these one line mentions: [3] [4] [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• A good RS article here [6] to start.(olive (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

• Strong keep based on news hits from template link at top of AFD. Articles from numerous newspapers, often in major cities, were devoted solely to his lectures. Some of these constitute the generic public relations type, but there are enough of greater length and depth to establish at least notability as a mass-market best-selling author. There's no lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. I've little knowledge of this field, but he was so well known that even I'd heard of him. I suspect part of the problem is that his greatest period of notability was in the 80s and 90s, but even so enough links--though some are pay-per-view-- still exist online to establish significance. Apologies if I've inadvertently included any of the following twice. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. To me this isn't even a close one. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Again we have more newspaper clippings, this is hardly indicative of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between 'newspaper clippings', which you're using pejoratively, and reliable sources eludes me. These are published articles about the subject, per WP:RELIABLE, which establish notability. Likewise, there is frequent mention of Siegel as a bestselling author. I've seen, and nominated for deletion, authors here that merit an AFD discussion for sheer lack of references regarding themselves or their books. This isn't one of them by a longshot. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to confuse reliable sourcing with notability, just because the content can be verified (most of the article appears based on does not mean we should have an article on it. The notability requirements are clear see WP:AUTHOR. That most of the sources people have found are from the 1988 era indicates that he does not have enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No confusion at all. There's no prejudice against sources from another decade. As I noted below, articles about Siegel's work have been published for several decades, not just 1988. His inclusion in several anthologies, as listed in 'Further reading', establishes notability per WP:AUTHOR guidelines 1 and 2. Again, at top you said there was no significant coverage in reliable sources; now that their presence is clearly established you're parsing them with regard to their dates of publication and whether their existence merits an article. What's going on here? By which I mean, the article can use a clean up and addition of further reliable sources. It never should have been brought here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just now glanced at the article itself, which offers multiple cites of reviews of the subject's books, by major newspapers, easily meeting guidelines per WP:AUTHOR. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is filling up with WP:PUFFERY to give it the impression of notability. That we are resorting to an article entirely filled with newspaper clippings seems to violate WP:NOT#NEWS. As the article stands it consists solely of clippings out of the NYT and the Los Angeles times, hardly a sign of enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Puffery and non-neutral content are easily removed. Articles, in these instances book reviews from the aforementioned papers, do establish significance as stated (to belabor the point) at WP:AUTHOR. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Which of the 5 points in WP:AUTHOR do you think the individual meets. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a rapid reading at least #3: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It's possible, given the popularity of his publications and the theories they proposed, that #1 and #2 will come into play. But even if not, I'm concerned that you're seeking to apply a more stringent interpretation of notability guidelines than I've seen before--in the initial rationale for deletion you wrote No significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources go beyond synthesis, and at the very least speak to an erstwhile broad cultural popularity. There are no guidelines clearly indicating a necessary duration of coverage to establish notability. Yet WP:NOTNEWSPAPER isn't applicable here because the subject did not receive coverage for an isolated incident, but has been the subject of coverage for his books and theories over the course of several decades. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the article most of the coverage was from around 1988 in relation to his book, this suggests that the book may be notable whilst he isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The numerous sources provided on this page alone have addressed that. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already raised my issues with the current sourcing in the article (mostly primary sourcing). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, and those concerned have been addressed here. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Enough sources shown for the subject to meet the GNG.  The Steve  23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, according to WP:NBOOK, books which have been on bestseller lists are notable. According to WP:AUTHOR, authors of bestselling books are notable. Exclusion of people for their spiritual or religious views that you do not share is non-neutral censorship. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope I'm not sure where you got that from since it isn't in WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK doesn't mention being on bestsellers lists. That is, neither mention anything about books being in bestselling lists as conferring notability. Noone is suggesting to exclude someone for their religious views etc. I suggest you look at the criteria given at WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Siegel's life and career are adequately covered by high level sources such as the Boston Globe ("Doctor of Hope"), the Historical dictionary of New Age movements, The encyclopedia of mental health, and the related Encyclopedia of Stress and Stress-related Diseases. At WP:AUTHOR he also meets the requirements for being widely cited and for creating a new method. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That recent tertiary sources mention him seems to confer some notability. My next issue then is if there is enough decent material in existence to create a good article. At the moment the article appears to be based off mostly primary sources (with no secondary sources to give due weight). We can use the tertiary sources to provide context etc for the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If, by the nominator's suggestion, we're moving from the issue of notability toward that of crafting a good article, then the discussion here has become--no pun intended--academic. But for future reference, I'm not aware of a Wikipedia guideline stating a preference for recent sources in establishing notability. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We look for enduring notability. If there were a flurry of newspaper mentions in relation to the 1985-1990 where he published the book but not much of anything since then it would suggest his long term notability is probably negligible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and an unusual interpretation of what constitutes notability here. Could you provide precedents to support the claim If there were a flurry of newspaper mentions in relation to the 1985-1990 where he published the book but not much of anything since then it would suggest his long term notability is probably negligible? 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Enduring notability is nice but not necessary. If it were required, articles such as Locofocos and Come-outer could not exist, describing things from the 1800s that have no modern usage. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, they feature in many reliable sources across about 150 years, this appears to indicate enduring notability; here are some mentions amongst recent sources alone: [17], [18]. [19] [20]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, is there a Wikipedia guideline to support the rather subjective interpretation above re: 5 years of coverage being inadequate? And as I've noted several times, the sources listed here cover more than 5 years. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is moot anyway. The subject is covered in depth in at least two 2007 sources which I added to further reading. He is also mentioned in numerous sources more recent than that, though not in enough depth to add them to further reading. The characterization that he was only mentioned in publications in the 1980s is a false premise on which to base an argument. Several editors seem to be twisting both the facts and making up their own rules in a campaign to delete the article of this undisputably notable subject. They should find some better way to waste their time, because at this point that's all they are doing. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be basing this assertion on your own misunderstanding of what a primary source is. A primary source is not limited to something that Bernie Siegel has written. In a source if the writer expresses an opinion, then that source is a primary source for that opinion. When you cite the New York times bestsellers list (which they created from data they are given) as supporting the statement that Siegel featured in the NYT bestsellers list then the NYT is a primary source. WP:RSEX in particular mentions the NYT as being a big primary source: More recently, primary sources have been put online, such as the complete run of the The Times, the New York Times and other major newspapers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous and I'm quite sure you're wrong. Just go be wrong somewhere else. Yworo (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep There is enough coverage of him and/or his books in notable publications (NYTimes, LATimes, BostonGlobe, etc.) to pass WP:GNG. I think that the arguments revolving around "New Age!", both pro and con, are not especially relevant. If mainstream publications review his works and the person, it passes WP:GNG. I'm also willing to bet that most readers of his books don't consider themselves New Agers, but I'm not a reliable or reputable source by any stretch of the imagination. First Light (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Time to close as Keep. Nominator allows that detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources establishes notability. We're done here, folks. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm becoming satisfied that a somewhat decent article can be created if the sourcing issues are taken care of. I contrast the original article I nominated [21] to the article now [22]. Whilst it has issues they are probably fundamentally resolvable (or at least I hope so). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a helpful link, IRWolfie, and gives context to your reason for nomination. It seems a lot of the discussion initially centered on the fringe business, which was a detour. I think the article is salvageable, but needs further work. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The existence of several tertiary sources appears to confer close to the level of enduring notability I was looking for to satisfy notability requirements. Whilst the article as it stands has issues, I think (or rather I hope) they are fundamentally resolvable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, since sourcing issues were resolved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with IRWolfie-, however I remain concerned that the article gives the impression of somebody far more mainstream and famous than I suspect he is. I am concerned that the article does not fully represent the mainstream view that his theories are fringe and have had no lasting impact outside the New Thought movement. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think the sales of the book from 1986, and its longterm presence on the bestseller established a pop culture recognition which, though perhaps waning, is still in play--as mentioned above, this is not my bailiwick, but even I'm familiar with his name. I don't know what the mainstream take is on his theories, and whether they're regarded as fringe, but if sources can be found which address this then it would be relevant, so long as it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. And given the activity around this I imagine enough eyes are on the article to insure balance. As a throwaway observation what's impressed me about this process is the crafting of an acceptable article via a sometimes mildly contentious exchange. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• I see you (Salimfadhley) have sought input as to whether Quackwatch is a reliable source--even if the author of the piece is an acknowledged expert in the field, I wouldn't be in a hurry to list a website by that name as a reference; it rather undercuts credibility. Nor does the relevant passage characterize Siegel quackingly, though it does refute the medical efficacy of his theories--there is a distinction. Footnote 52 of the article links to the specific study description [23], though I don't see that it names Siegel. And it does concede that 'the program may have beneficial effects on quality of life', despite little or no apparent difference in longevity for cancer patients. For what it's worth, Siegel disassociated himself from the study afterwards [24], which raises more questions than it answers. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Could we move this discussion to the article's talk-page since it's not relevant to the AFD? Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely--go right ahead. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)