Talk:Henry Tazelaar
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
Published, very well-known in pathology circles, what is the problem? I realize the page is not complete but my intentions were only to give someone a start.
Real or Imaginary?[edit]
The subject is described as legendary.There is nothing cited. SilasW 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply to unsigned comment[edit]
The problem is that you write contrary to the Wikipedia concept. "published, very well-known.." does not constitute published third party sources. If JTaz wished for an entry for H Tazelaar then the rules should have been followed. Someone seems to have gone overboard at my comment. I objected only to "legendary" and pointed out the article was unsourced which it still is. "avoid weasel words" now pops up at "considered". The external link is written, in part at least, by the subject of the article as it lists "my research interests". An encyclopedia is to provide information not to be a starting point for a hunt through the wilds of the web to discover it.--SilasW 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability[edit]
This and this suggest that there is no need to slap {{notability}} on the article. Jobjörn (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)