"

 Speedy Deletion ""Dogsoc"" as patent nonsense 

Hi Dreadstar
Could you please rehabilitate the ""Dogsoc"" article you deleted to some private talk space so that we can work with it and convert it to brilliant prose and all the other stuff. Would appreciate a little room / time to work on this one - since it is not patent nonsense although it may appear so at first blush.  

I will reply for Dreadstar, and he can respond  if he needs to. Let me first explain the concept of verifiability, which is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Another thing is notability, which basically means that you can create an acronym about something, but that does not make it automatically notable. Without citations to reliable, third-party sources (such as news articles, professional journal articles, magazine articles, etc.,), then articles are likely to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and, additionally, I would like to point you to the conflict of interest guideline, because your username is the same as the title of the article. The COI guideline explains that editors should not create or edit articles about themselves, their company, organization, product, or family or friends, as they would likely be unable to edit neutrally. Neutrality is another of Wikipedia's core policies. I'd encourage you to review the policies and guidelines given here, and once you have, consider if indeed, the article you submitted was verifiable by multiple reliable sources, and displayed notability. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold

Thanks Ariel, better get some foot warmers for that poor doggie!   † 

Dogsoc, the article consisted of an acronym and six sentences describing what the acronym meant, none of which was verifiable per WP:Verifiability, and which miserably failed Wikipedia:Notability.  The only claim to verifiability was a presumed ""xerox copy"" of an ""underground magazine"" published in 1976 purportedly recently acquired and alleged to be undergoing the ""process of being translated and scanned.""  The contents of the article, although short, were quite inflammatory, making unfounded accusations against governmental ""regulatory assassins"", etc.  All in all, it added up to, quite frankly, patent nonsense with no meaningful content.  † 

Dreadstar, Wiki has many articles devoted to acronyms (such as United Nations, United States of America). Referring to the recently acquired document, there is now a stay order of the concerned High Court on publication of this document. We can *Now* cite the judgement's link on an OFFICIAL Govt. High Court website (which ought to meet reputable source /verificability criteria). For DOGSOC notability a simple google (is this verifiable?) news search on ""Nandigram"" should do. Finally I may mention Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy which is absolutely non-negotiable.  
Dogsoc, you do not seem to have read the links provided to you. You say ""DOGSOC"" is on Google, but here is the Google search result for DOGSOC  with a total of  one article from 1910, not related to this article you are claiming is notable. The words you said it stands for, ""Dismantling our Governments Selling our Cities"", a Google search comes up with again, nothing:  None of this has anything to do with POV, it has to do with, again, verifiability and reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability. Yes, USA, UN, and many, many other acronyms have pages here, but they are notable, mentioned in the news, media, and other reliable sources. This acronym is not. Further, you may wish to review the single purpose account guide as well. Thanks, Ariel[[Special:C