Talk:Sophal Ear
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sophal Ear is a leading scholar on Cambodian Reconstruction, so his page shouldn't be deleted.
Simsong (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- He may be a notable scholar, as the request for speedy deletion was declined. However, statements such as "is regarded as the definitive work" MUST be sourced to things outside the author's own website, or they express a non-neutral point of view of our encyclopedia. Please see WP:CITE on methods of citing inline. A good article to follow for samples would be Noam Chomsky (I'm referring to the cites behind the little superscript numbers. )Mbisanz (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I declined the speedy, but not because he's a notable scholar. He almost certainly is not, with only a very few peer-reviewed papers. But the article did claim notability as an expert on the subject, and he may in fact be a notable expert --writer and lecturer on the Cambodian reconstruction and related topics. This is more diffuse, and its hard to tell what the consensus would be, but any claim to notability is enough to prevent a speedy, and this at least had claims. I think the article needs a good deal of supplementing from the info on his cv., and a search for references to him. I do not know what the consensus will be o notability--what I personally would say is a weak keep, but its based on a careful inspection of the cv and his autobio on it, not the article alone. If good refs are found to his him from 3rd party sources, then he would clearly be notable. Needs a rewrite; I've given some hints, but I'm not going to do it. . One of the problems in COI is sometimes not saying enough. DGG (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. ---- Halo
- I declined the speedy, but not because he's a notable scholar. He almost certainly is not, with only a very few peer-reviewed papers. But the article did claim notability as an expert on the subject, and he may in fact be a notable expert --writer and lecturer on the Cambodian reconstruction and related topics. This is more diffuse, and its hard to tell what the consensus would be, but any claim to notability is enough to prevent a speedy, and this at least had claims. I think the article needs a good deal of supplementing from the info on his cv., and a search for references to him. I do not know what the consensus will be o notability--what I personally would say is a weak keep, but its based on a careful inspection of the cv and his autobio on it, not the article alone. If good refs are found to his him from 3rd party sources, then he would clearly be notable. Needs a rewrite; I've given some hints, but I'm not going to do it. . One of the problems in COI is sometimes not saying enough. DGG (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
