Talk:Charles Wilfred Valentine

Untitled
I fail to see how anyone who has a Oxford DNB entry cannot be notable. I also assume that anyone who complains of this is either (a) ignorant of what the oxford DNB is, or (b) hasn't bothered to read any of the 3 sources provided. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the links you provided, I find the Oxford DNB the most useless - here's the full text there: "Valentine, Charles Wilfrid (1879–1964), psychologist and educationist " - whoop-de-freaking-do - that's LESS than the text in this article. It then provides two links to articles that cannot be read. I've looked at the sources you provided, and I do not feel they show notability, especially since you cannot be bothered to write an article longer than one sentence. Either expand the thing to show his notability, and properly cite the thing, or leave the tag alone. And please, leave the personal attacks out of it. Calling other editors is uncivil and can get you blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, thanks for your comment. As per WP:SOURCES, sources don't have to be made available online (although this one is, there is also a print edition of the ODBN), and they don't have to be available for free (perhaps you could buy yourself a subscription, or go to a library and look it up). Don't complain about the sources if you can't be bothered to actually check them. And more to the point, every one in the ODNB is automatically notable by result of significant coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per this comment on your talk page from an uninvolved editor, "Please note that we do not really trust any of the Who's who series as a proof of notability". Stop removing the tag, as you're too close to the matter to judge this properly. This is not nominating the article for deletion, it is simply flagging it with an appropriate concern. Continuing to remove valid tags (which these all are) will be treated as vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I've told you at least twice, both Who's Who and the ODNB are professionally edited, members are selected on merit alone. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you say - that does not make them automatically notable, however. NOTHING you have added to the article shows that. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No complaints about the references. Jim1138 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, you are the one being disruptive here, not Barney. The subject has an entry in an encyclopedia published by the Oxford University Press. If you don't understand that that means that this is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article then I would advise you to stop throwing your weight around and leave encyclopedia-building to people with some basic general knowledge and common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)