Content deleted Content added
RandomHumanoid (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*'''Comment''', does anyone else want more proof of notability? You can try [http://www.bible-researcher.com/knight1.html here], which is an example of one of his works. '''[[User:Tavix|Tavix]]''' [[User talk:Tavix|(talk)]] 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''', does anyone else want more proof of notability? You can try [http://www.bible-researcher.com/knight1.html here], which is an example of one of his works. '''[[User:Tavix|Tavix]]''' [[User talk:Tavix|(talk)]] 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
:* '''Question''' What on earth does an essay on a random website demonstrate? --[[User:RandomHumanoid|<font color = "green">'''R'''</font><font color = "blue">andom</font><font color = "green">'''H'''</font><font color = "blue">umanoid</font>]]<sup>([[User_talk:RandomHumanoid|<font color="crimson">⇒</font>]])</sup> 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
:* '''Question''' What on earth does an essay on a random website demonstrate? --[[User:RandomHumanoid|<font color = "green">'''R'''</font><font color = "blue">andom</font><font color = "green">'''H'''</font><font color = "blue">umanoid</font>]]<sup>([[User_talk:RandomHumanoid|<font color="crimson">⇒</font>]])</sup> 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
::*Can you read? '''[[User:Tavix|Tavix]]''' [[User talk:Tavix|(talk)]] 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:32, 29 December 2008
George W. Knight III
- George W. Knight III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not clear what his claim to notability is. That he had a short commentary included in an anthology is the only noteworthy item in the article and there is nothing special about this accomplishment. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable author. He has done way more than what the article claims, and the article has room for expansion. Tavix 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Followup: A Google Books search brings up 671 books either by him or mentions him. That is enough to establish notability for sure. Tavix (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- * Sanity check Only one of the entries on the first page from Google Books refers to him. Did you notice many of them were published in the previous century? Do you suppose he's the "George W. Knight" referenced in the book on Polymer Chemistry? Please, let's have some minimal level of attention before posting random Google links. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is true, didn't look that closely. Adding "George W. Knight III" still leaves 110 entries, which after a check, they all look to from/about this George W. Knight. Tavix (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, that seems reasonable, but I simply don't know how to interpret this number. Please don't interpret this the wrong way, but if I search for myself on Google Books, I have far, far more references. This is not a comparative statement; it is merely an acknowledgment that I don't know what these kinds of results imply. If this fellow is notable, let's find reliable sources that make this claim, rather than trying to guess what the results of Google Books mean.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- All it means is there are 110 books that either mention George W. Knight or are by him. I looked through every page, and given his name and his field, all of the books are this guy. Searching for yourself on Google Books obviously wouldn't reference you, but there are other people that share your name (unless you actually are an author). You could use any of the books as an example, but being referenced in over 100 books is a pretty notable task, which not many people can say. Tavix (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- My name is fairly unique and I am indeed referenced in far more than 110 books according to Google Books. This is perhaps not as unusual as you might think for academics, philosophers, theologians, etc. That is my sole point. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is beside the point. How many other people would have the name "George W. Knight III". According to my research, it would be zero. There may be some other "George W. Knight"s as you have proved, but having an ambiguous name or not says nothing.Tavix (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- This line of discussion is becoming unproductive. 100 references in the literature of his field is not particularly impressive. How are you determining your threshold for notability? (Rhetorical question there...) --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC);
- I'm not using a number, but instead I provided a source where one can find hundreds of notable, reliable sources for proving Mr. Knight's notability. Tavix 06:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- 110 does not equal hundreds. And I do think you are missing my point.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, but 110 > 100, so you can make it plural. You better explain you point more clearly then, because all your accusing me of doing is using a number to prove notability, when in actuality, I am providing a source where one could find information for finding notability. Tavix (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't establish Notability. Oroso (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep based on the numerous hits found by Tavix's booksearch. Edward321 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, does anyone else want more proof of notability? You can try here, which is an example of one of his works. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Question What on earth does an essay on a random website demonstrate? --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)