Talk:Norman Fairclough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on October 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	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.

[edit] Not enough sources

Despite the assumptions to the contrary, I nominated this article for deletion in good faith. There are still not enough sources in this article. I would as that those of you who so strongly insisted that the subject of this article is notable, that you would go ahead and fix this article by properly sourcing it, instead of taking the time only to accuse me of acting in bad faith and then letting this article sit with virtually no third-party references (which, like it or not, means it fails WP:N). --Cheeser1 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has commented or added to the article, I've gone ahead and tagged it as needing more sources for verification of, among other things, the notability of this person. Even the guideline on notability of academics states: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Cheeser1 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a lack of sources within the article, not "a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." Anyway, I've added some. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, but those sources are supposed to be cited or listed, not just alluded to in some "but they exist" argument. I insist on these improvements because they are required, but more importantly, because they improve the article (or, if they cannot be made, allow us to delete articles that should not exist). I'm glad my actions spurred improvements in this article, even if I took a bit of a slandering in the process. --Cheeser1 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)