| Revision as of 05:05, 4 January 2007 editSwpb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers93,240 editsm →[]: indent entries← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:16, 4 January 2007 edit undoRealkyhick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users42,073 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :: in ]. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability. There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue? We don't need thousands. ] (]/]) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | :: in ]. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability. There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue? We don't need thousands. ] (]/]) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::The personal websites of people who themselves have no assertion of notability do not constitute "non-trivial published works" as required by ]. — ] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | :::The personal websites of people who themselves have no assertion of notability do not constitute "non-trivial published works" as required by ]. — ] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep.''' Borderline notable. ] 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:16, 4 January 2007
Andrew Galambos
no real assertion of notability, seems to be a non-notable crackpot. — Swpb 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO--Tarret 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk 02:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Bucketsofg 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, widely referenced and written about crackpot, ideas who have been influential among libertarians and Objectivists. Hell, just look at the nontrivial independent sources in the external links! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of the three pages you link to, the first essentially merely refers to Galambos, rather than referencing his work in support of the author's arguement; the third is a book review, and the second, Galambos' eulogy, reads, I quote, "he never wrote a book or appeared on national radio or TV. His renown will be limited mostly to those who came in personal contact with him." Not exactly a strong endorsement for inclusion. — Swpb 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- entry in Language Log. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability. There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue? We don't need thousands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The personal websites of people who themselves have no assertion of notability do not constitute "non-trivial published works" as required by WP:BIO. — Swpb 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- entry in Language Log. His ideas get noticed and mentioned, and I'd say that constitutes valid claim to notability. There's more than one source for what's in the article, so what's the issue? We don't need thousands. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Borderline notable. Realkyhick 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)