Talk:Benny D. Freeman

Tags
Looks like tags were added by two editors at once. I'm not seeing anything to warrant the Autobiographical tag, nothing in the article that I'm seeing lacks neutrality, balance, or impartiality, so I'm removing that. If I missed something, please comment here. The two source tags are sort of a dealer's choice. Single source one seems a bit more appropriate so we'll go with that. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article's subject is adding extremely promotional content eg. "Benny is a leading researcher". To accept an autobiographical draft with a single primary source seems astounding to me? Theroadislong (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is for sure warranted now. WP:GOODFAITH is out the window. I've also requested page protection.Sulfurboy (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also it was accepted out of AfC, because subject undoubtedly passes WP:PROF Sulfurboy (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing 'undoubtedly' about it. See WP:V. An autobiography with one citation? What's that doing in mainspace? It doesn't matter if this was Einstein - without sourcing, we don't know if the claims here stand up, and that matters. (Does it?) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He passes the 5th prong of WP:PROF, in that he has a named chair appointment. This is backed by a listed reference the source of which is the school's own website, making it wholly reliable. The AfC standard is whether or not an article would likely pass a AfD discussion, which it most assuredly would since it easily passes the aforementioned prong . However, if you disagree I would encourage you to nominate it for AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that already, it's the only reason I didn't AfD it. But it's still not cited. A ref on the page (with a title that gives no indication) isn't enough.
 * This is probably a notable BLP. But I can't see that it's a notable BLP - and that's not good enough to go into mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, what's with the subst (?) of the infobox, and the great wodge of conditional parser expressions it has dumped in the top? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to see the citation. All that's required is that the claim (that he has a named chair appointment) is verifiable, and it is in fact verifiable by the reference in the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)