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 sourcedmust 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Somebody tagged this article with a "notability" tag. A simple search on e.g. New York Times should show that he is a prominent researcher: [1]. Is it really constructive to tag articles with "notability" and other tags willy-nilly, when any of the mentioned uncertainties is trivially clarified by a quick Google search? Thue (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:FAILN
, placing the tag is one of the recommended courses of action:
"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: [...] Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors."
It got your attention so I think it served its purpose. Creating unverifiable articles devalues the integrity of Wikipedia. There are so many instances of self-promotion that I really don't want to spend my time verifying them. I don't particularly seek out those articles, but when I come across any, I tag them at first and come back at some later time to decide whether I should proceed with deletion.
A subject's notability is not immediately obvious from "a simple search",
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent, which takes time to verify. Articles that merely include a quote from the subject aren't relevant, like most of your search results. -- intgr[talk] 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
