On 6/9/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
K but we have a new role of BLP bashes (and no i dont want to go
through a list of phillo-babblists) will they still stand? just makes
the whole BLP thing stupid if they rush (credible editors) devotees
into an afd.
On 09/06/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like
> this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
I'm a bit confused. Looking at the AfD (which is now closed), it seems to
have been deleted on notability issues. But am I right that your concern
is now about Langan's own article? If so, it seems pretty well sourced but
looks a little sparse. I could see arguments made against his notability,
but I doubt they'd be under BLP per se. If BLP 'tightens' notability
requirements for people, it's for ethically responsible treatment of them as
subjects.
I think if anyone challenged Langan, it would simply be borderline
notability in a kind-of overall fashion. But then again, I've seen much
stubbier looking articles than that. And with the Cognitive Theoretic Model
article redirected to his, there's immediate room for improvement.
InkSplotch
--
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"