| Revision as of 03:15, 1 February 2007 editDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →[]: k← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:52, 1 February 2007 edit undoCindery (talk | contribs)3,807 edits re the three "sources"Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''keep''' There need not be any N as a scientist. The articles is not about his physics, but about the discrimination lawsuit, which I think is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. NRC Canada is a rather large organization & the article is appropriately mostly an outline linking to the articles about the various component bodies. This material would not reasonable fit in there. The article seems objective enough, and it is sourcd, so I do not see that who wrote it is to the point. ''']''' 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''keep''' There need not be any N as a scientist. The articles is not about his physics, but about the discrimination lawsuit, which I think is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. NRC Canada is a rather large organization & the article is appropriately mostly an outline linking to the articles about the various component bodies. This material would not reasonable fit in there. The article seems objective enough, and it is sourcd, so I do not see that who wrote it is to the point. ''']''' 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **It's not sourced, actually--the first "source"is the lawsuit itself, which was not published/is a primary source, and the third is a general article that doesn't even mention Grover. The 2nd source is a small newspaper--The Ottawa Citizen--an article which isn't about the lawsuit per se, but about events which took place after. One indirect mention in a regional newspaper doesn't make it sourced/notable, I don't think...-] 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:52, 1 February 2007
Chander P. Grover
- Chander P. Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
notability questionable/possible author vanity/COI
- Weak keep or MergeTag the page for cleanup, sourcing, and NPOV, or merge racial discrimination info with National Research Council of Canada Also, vanity is not itself a valid reason for deletion.--IRelayer 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: there aren't sources for the notability of Chander himself as a scientist--his pubmed citations don't place him above "average college professor." The implied notability seems to come from the lawsuit--and not very plaintiff in a lawsuit is inherently notable. In fact, few are. In this case, the damages were extemely low--$5,000--and it's not the only discrimination lawsuit in the history of the world (or Canada). It didn't get more than local mention, it appears. When are plaintiffs notable?--We do not have an article on the woman who received a 4.5 million dollar settlement for the Dalkon Shield, for example (nor would we call her a "human rights activist"). The article appears to have been written by a relative. I don't think mention should be in NRC, either, per due weight. A sentence or two could perhaps be merged into an article about Canadian discrimination lawsuits or something, if one exists.-Cindery 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- keep There need not be any N as a scientist. The articles is not about his physics, but about the discrimination lawsuit, which I think is sufficiently notable that the article should be kept. NRC Canada is a rather large organization & the article is appropriately mostly an outline linking to the articles about the various component bodies. This material would not reasonable fit in there. The article seems objective enough, and it is sourcd, so I do not see that who wrote it is to the point. DGG 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not sourced, actually--the first "source"is the lawsuit itself, which was not published/is a primary source, and the third is a general article that doesn't even mention Grover. The 2nd source is a small newspaper--The Ottawa Citizen--an article which isn't about the lawsuit per se, but about events which took place after. One indirect mention in a regional newspaper doesn't make it sourced/notable, I don't think...-Cindery 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)