Talk:Nicholas Maxwell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Notability
This article does not currently satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia's notability policy; it is possible that it is also in conflict with Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. --RichardVeryard 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
I have also removed the link to Nicholas Maxwell from the Category:Philosophers of science. The appropriate mechanism for adding articles to categories is to edit the article itself not the category page. --RichardVeryard 12:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] N
as demonstrated by the independent sources of the book reviews. Does need rewriting to WP stds. DGG 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Notability (academics) calls for something more substantial than a list of flattering book reviews. Unless evidence of Maxwell's notability is forthcoming which satisfies the stated Wikipedia criteria, I shall repeat my proposal for deletion. --RichardVeryard 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- N for academics as for anyone else consists of people saying they are notable in RSs, and published book reviews are exactly what establishes it for books and for authors, just as reviews establish the notability of musicians and dancers and performing artists in general and visual artists. First, the reputation of the publisher--and for UK humanities, Basil Blackwell and OUP are as reputable as one can get. That, and the the positions they hold. This article needs some more information of the biography to establish the positions; the one given sounds impressive, but may or may not be. It remains a very week article. Removing the quotations seems to have left the long description of the theory unreferenced--there should be some middle ground. DGG 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the stated criteria for academics don't mention book reviews or reputable publishers. (My own books have been published by Blackwells, Prentice-Hall, Butterworths and Springer, and have received flattering reviews. Does that make me notable?) The key issue appears to be the significance of the academic and his work, and I believe this remains undemonstrated. --RichardVeryard 08:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- N for academics as for anyone else consists of people saying they are notable in RSs, and published book reviews are exactly what establishes it for books and for authors, just as reviews establish the notability of musicians and dancers and performing artists in general and visual artists. First, the reputation of the publisher--and for UK humanities, Basil Blackwell and OUP are as reputable as one can get. That, and the the positions they hold. This article needs some more information of the biography to establish the positions; the one given sounds impressive, but may or may not be. It remains a very week article. Removing the quotations seems to have left the long description of the theory unreferenced--there should be some middle ground. DGG 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Conflict of Interest
Who is Scruple who created this article? --RichardVeryard 08:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
