Talk:David Nelken

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Nelken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.law.miami.edu/facadmin/visiting/dnelken.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122034858/http://www.crim.ox.ac.uk:80/visitingfellows/NelkenDavid.htm to http://www.crim.ox.ac.uk/visitingfellows/NelkenDavid.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag
Please do not remove tags until the issue is resolved. This is against wikipedia policies. I do not question this person's notability, I am questioning the article. And AfD is not a cleanup. If you care about the prof (I don't), fix the article. Staszek Lem (talk)

Moved out of my talk page:
 * Please read the notability tag you are edit-warring to reinstate on David Nelken. (1) It states directly that it is about the topic, not about the article. The topic is notable. Notability of topics is independent of what is in their article or even whether we already have an article on that topic. (2) You are not even using the correct notability standard. For this topic, you want notability|academics, not notability|biographies. And he very obviously passes the academic notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the article, he does not pass notability for academics, as I explained in edit summary. In the future please discuss articles in article talk pages, not in wikipedian ones. Also you yourself started revert war by failing WP:BRD: I reverted your edit, with detailed edit summary, and you failed to discuss the issue in the talk page. I would have expected better from a well-established wikipedian. Aren't we becoming too righteous? This is a common disease among the "Old Guard".  I I am dropping the issue because I don't freaking care about this prof (just as everybody else, judging from the state of the article).  Staszek Lem (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are either unable or unwilling to read the clear statement of our notability guidelines, even after your mistakes are pointed out to you. They apply to topics, not articles. Nothing in WP:PROF concerns the content of the article. For that matter nothing in GNG concerns the content of the article. They are about accomplishments and about the existence of sourcing, not about whether that sourcing has been recorded here. We have different cleanup tags for notable topics whose sourcing is inadequate, which were validly used here and which I left in place until actually improving the sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are either unable or unwilling to understand the purpose of our notablility guidelines: their usage is intended for AfD discussions. If an article is in a sorry state, it must be tagged so. In this particular case, there is not at all evident from the article that the person is notable and it has nothing to do with my due diligence, because I am not listing it for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)