Talk:Ray Wendland

Untitled
'notable'? "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy).[1] Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia#Criteria

I don't see anything notable about this man, so wonder if it was done to help sell a book perhaps? I stumbled upon this by doing a search, not of the person, but petrochemistry. So, after reading a bit of the article and couldn't find anything that was notable about this person or his supposed field of expertise. I then did a google search about this person and found there are links that come up, but those links lead to websites selling a book about the named subject. What caught my attention that also added more questions regarding the nobility, and possible motive for the article being created, was the description of the book which said the information was gathered from Wikipedia. See here http://www.amazon.com/Ray-Wendland-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6135357778, and here http://books.google.com/books/about/Ray_Wendland.html?id=bgguKQEACAAJ. Wikipedia http://demo.openlinksw.com/about/html/http/dbpedia.org/resource/Ray_Wendland

Also, there seems to be no third party reliable sources for the article either, as far as I can tell. A source listed in the article, the first one, is authored by "Anonymous"? That raised another red flag.... How is being a teacher, and an experimental chemist (who did not make any notable contributions in the fields he's listed) notable enough to be encyclopedic? I'm positive there are millions of teachers who've published a few papers about a particular field, but they are not alloted an article. Well, I may be wrong, but I found THIS article after searching and wanting to learn more about petrochemicals. It didn't help me learn anything, other than a couple of books have been published, but from information gathered for here. That was the final red flag, and had me scratching my head. LOL

Please help me, or more importantly others, understand why this person is notable or not. I'm not really interested in editing Wikipedia, so don't have an account here, so I'm not sure if anyone will see this or even care that it's here. I was only bugged by it, because I felt I wasted my time reading it, and then researching it, and hoping there was more about him and the subject that may be interesting and informative. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia that the articles are meant to be informational, and in a significant way?

I understand that Wikipedia can and does include the most mundane things, but could it be that someone, who may be related to this person might just want his memory preserved here? If so, wouldn't that also means this article does not met the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia? What other reasons may this article be notable? 74.83.35.137 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)(just an IP)