Talk:Warren White (oceanographer)

Instead of blanking the article, let's discuss it here.
‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I raised it: Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people yesterday too. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this keeps getting blanked--not being a secondary source is not intrinsically a problem for material included in an entry. It can be an argument for why the entry itself should be deleted, but under WP:NACADEMIC it may not apply here. Unless a valid argument can be advanced for why the material's inappropriate to include in the entry, it should be restored. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lack of secondary sources might be a reason to nominate the article for deletion but it's not a valid reason to remove, say, a list of papers the subject has published. There's no requirement that all information within an article must have a secondary source, particularly with something self-evident such as the fact that the subject published a paper.  Hut 8.5  20:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, if I had a dollar for every time a new editor removes a primary source, citing the title of WP:SECONDARY without even reading the first sentence... 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)