Talk:John Donald Robb

Notable?
Is this person in any way notable? The article does not assert any notability at present.--Michig 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A simple Google search would have shown you that he was. We are all able to work together to edit and expand articles, and in some cases an editor will begin a page, with the understanding that other editors with interest and expertise will add to it over time. Badagnani 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering, because there didn't seem to be a good reason to have a disambiguation page at John Robb. The dab page still seems unnnecessary since only one is known simply as John Robb.  If you're adding an article it's up to you to make sure that notability is clear, not other editors.--Michig 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person who added text to this page. I am not understanding the problems. I tried to present the material as accurately as possible with references. I also don't understand the comments above about being a notable person. What's a disambiguation page? I welcome any advice for how to make this page fit within your standards. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9Betsy (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. It can be a bewildering place at first, but asking questions is the best way to get answers. You should notice that the discussions above are dated to nearly seven years ago, and a lot can happen in so long a time. There is an article explaining what "notability" entails here. I doubt that there is any longer a serious issue over notability for John Donald Robb, but you should read the notability article anyway, because it will help you to understand one of the more important issues when it comes to writing biographical articles (or articles on any topic, for that matter). Disambiguation is a somewhat more mechanical matter, and is explained at Disambiguation. A disambiguation page" is used to redirect the reader to several different articles that have a common name, such as biography articles for different people named John Smith. The discussion from 2007, above, concerns the question of whether anyone would likely search for John Donald Robb without using his middle name, in which case there are several John Robbs from which to choose (and even another John D. Robb). This appears to have been dealt with long since. The current situation (which prompted addition of a banner a day or two ago) has to do with neutrality and a possible conflict of interest, since the fairly large number of edits made (I assume these are the ones you did) appeared to come from someone closely associated with the subject of an article. While this is not necessarily a fatal problem, in order to avoid the appearance of self-interested parties being responsible for most of the article content, it is important that editors not associated with the subject supply enough of the information, and that a sufficient number of independent, third-party sources be cited, to establish that the subject is actually notable. This is one reason why I restored the two citations that were deleted. Up to now, I suppose I have been the primary contributing editor to this article, which should help ameliorate the appearance of conflict-of-interest, since I have absolutely no connection at all with J. D. Robb, and only came upon this article by chance, when following up a connection from another composer article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, having looked at this article, I believe there are now, in the year 2020, plenty of even international references to prove notability. I will remove the tag. (Rinnzekete (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC))