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".

On 6/9/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Sorry, my last reply was very far from the mark. As per confusion (a)just wanted to get ideas about how to treat psuedo-philosophy (not just from bar bouncers to dons at oxford). When these guys show up as articles - can we PROD and see a lot of pdf links we cant see in a minute or evaluate, pop up from sites directly linked to the BIO.