Talk:Ogden Rood

re: "stub" assessment
It's a three paragraph article on a relatively minor figure, with a few references. It's not a stub. I'll keep reverting that until you provide an argument otherwise. For example, outline what a "complete" article on Ogden Rood would look like with reference to the available literature. Outriggr (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this article IS a stub. It barely manages to provide enough information to establish notability. A proper article would contain at least: 1) an infobox, 2)a few paragraph section on his (academic) life. (including place and date of birth/death which currently are missing.) 3) a few paragraph section on his ideas and whatever impact those made on the world. 4)Maybe (if really relevant) a section on his art. 5)(maybe) a short bibliography.
 * And that is just what I can think of with the minimal information I have about him. That the subject is "a relatively minor figure" has absolutely no bearing on whether this article is a stub or not. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC))