Talk:Bob Howard (political scientist)

(Redirected from Talk:Bob Howard (academic))
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Otr500 in topic Notability
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Howard (academic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notability

edit
I was not able to weigh in on this because it was closed while I was researching. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states ""Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.": (#8)- The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. This seems to be a shoe-in except reliable sources do not include primary sources for WP:notability. The article either has only primary sources, sources that are not about the subject, or non-primary that is not about the subject. The lone criteria that a professor can be "notable" without acceptable proof is insane, and that is not what the criteria states, and the sourcing for a BLP stinks.
I will be watching this article and will, at the earliest possible convenience, resubmit for AFD without some sourcing to verify notability that are not primary. Otr500 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply