Talk:W. R. Boyce Gibson

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Contemporary philosophy

Notability edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would help to include, more content or a works list to assert the articles notability.GarbledLecture933 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The coverage afforded by the Australian Dictionary of Biography and Who's Who demonstrate notability. These are independent, professionally edited sources (whereas you are an amateur, a well meaning amateur nonetheless like myself, but be ware of your limitations). Instead of adding tags which (a) demands additional references when it is sufficiently referenced and (b) seem to be the first step on a way to deletion, why don't you (a) check the sources provided (at least you can't complain that the ADB is behind a paywall) (b) see if you can find any additional sources that might be useful (obituaries say), and (c) based on those expand the article? Do something constructive as opposed to something destructive? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic