Talk:Rob Dunn

Sourcing and notability
The sole source currently cited is an interview with the subject. That means that most of the content is in the words of the subject, and so is not very useful to establish notability, nor is such an interview usually considered a reliable source. Moreover, the facts currently stated in the article are not enough to establish notability, even assuming that they are all accurate and supported by reliable source cites. Additional cited info is needed for this to stay around. DES (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You better get on it then. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you just don't feel like helping even though you created this article, or you already know there aren't any more sources available (to improve this article)? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will add what I can find. If that doesn't seem to be enough to establish a viable article, DCDuring, and since you don't seem intersted in inproving this, I will list it for deletion. Experinced editors ought to be willing to do some work to refernce and support articles that they create. DES (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten how unpleasant WP can be. DCDuring (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this guy an academic or a nonfiction author? 24.104.198.120 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears from the statements in the article that he is both. That is, Dunn is an academic who has written popular non-fiction work. This is not uncommon, the case of Carl Sagan comes to mind, along with many others. It looks to me as if Dunn is more notable for his popular non-fiction than as a pure academic, unless more significant academic contributions are not yet included in the article, which may well be the case. But if he is notable, all aspects of his life and career can and should be included in the article (with due weight), not just the thing(s) for which he is primarily notable. DES (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)