Talk:Josef Berger (scientist)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by David Eppstein in topic Lack of sources
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article issues edit
This BLP professor (scientist) article is inappropriately sourced through a single "External link". Otr500 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Lack of sources edit
I decided to speedily keep the article due to comments pointing out that Berger loosely meets WP:NACADEMIC. However, I will not have my capability as an editor questioned for me choosing to nominate the article for deletion – this article needs sourcing to prove that notability per WP:BURDEN; pinging @Eastmain and David Eppstein: to perhaps lend a hand in this, since they expressed a desire for it to be kept. – DarkGlow • 22:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: Academic notability is not based on sourcing, but on verifiable accomplishments. It is a separate notability guideline from WP:GNG, not subsidiary to it. As you should already know, if you are going to be making academic deletion nominations. Therefore, you are incorrect in stating "this article needs sourcing to prove that notability". That is not how this kind of notability works. It needs sourcing for verifiability, of course, but that is separate from notability and is already addressed by the source present in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Simple wording error. I know how Wikipedia works. We literally linked the same guideline. – DarkGlow • 22:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you know how WP:PROF works, why would you write "this article needs sourcing to prove that notability"? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Simple wording error. I know how Wikipedia works. We literally linked the same guideline. – DarkGlow • 22:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)