Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Andrew Galambos (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrKay (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 4 January 2007 ([]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:10, 4 January 2007 by DrKay (talk | contribs) ([])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Andrew Galambos

Andrew Galambos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

no real assertion of notability, seems to be a non-notable crackpot. — Swpb 01:38, 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)
Categories: