new BLP is going mad - the guy is clearly mad but sourced?
Every time i open my watchlist its an Afd, Its worst than the black death.
Thanks for looking - :-)
On 09/06/07, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@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@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!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l