From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
[edit] Notability
Being the teacher/mentor of someone notable or the son of someone possibly notable does not make this subject notable by association. I've restored {{notability}}. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). If this subject's notability is not established within a week's time, I intend to submit to WP:AFD for discussion.--cj | talk 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dear Cyberjunkie, (i) If you check out the wikiguidelines on "academic notability" you will see that being the academic supervisor of someone notable is counted as being notable. (ii) Also futher to this, Cranke worked at Cambridge in the 1700s which was very much in its formative stages and therefore his influence tutoring leading students becomes an important link in the history of the place. (iii) Wikipedipedia is collaborative and I'm sure other editors will develop the article further over time and add further notable items. Give it a couple of years. I understand the rush to delete scientists who are still alive as "vanity articles" without proper notability, but in the case of a historical cahracter such as Cranke (who is long dead) it serves wikipedia better to leave it in so many editors can collaborate and develop the article further. Best regards, bunix 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi Bunzil. (i) The clause you refer to is qualified with the following: "merely having a notable student is not sufficient: (1) the student should be extremely notable." Thomas Jones (mathematician) is not extremely notable, and may in fact not satisfy notability criteria at all. (ii) This is all well and good, but it needs to verifiable, else it is simply original research. (iii) I agree articles develop over time – I am myself broadly eventualist. However, articles need to at least demonstrate notability to be included in the encyclopædia, and this article does not.--cj | talk 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
