Talk:Daniel Greenberg

message: In  recreating this article, Nfitz makes the following false assertions:
*"Meets WP:ACADEMIC": no it doesn't. It meets none of the criteria for this guideline, as it does not even assert any of the following (let alone substantiate it from RS):
*"Don't blank pages … You violate WP:BLANK." A WP:REDIRECT is not blanking.
*"Take to … AfD." A redirect does not require an AfD.
*"Take to Talk" Just did so.
Further I would point out that this article has no sourced content, so fails WP:V. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps you should have gotten your policy straight first before reverting repeatedly on the basis of inapplicable policy. The article does not yet meet WP:AUTHOR, as it does not yet meet any of the criteria but simply states that Greenberg "has published several books and presented numerous lectures on the Sudbury model." Nor does it demonstrate meeting WP:GNG as the only sourced information in the article is "Daniel A. Greenberg (born c. 1934) is a founding member of the Sudbury Valley School in Framingham, Massachusetts.[1] Before founding the school in 1968, he was a physics professor at Columbia University.[2][3]" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Four years to get two whole sentences sourced. You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith and give the fella a chance to flesh out the article. I don't want to see more sentences about whether the research has been done sufficiently than showing the results of that research. Nfitz's time is better spent working on the article then on defending its existence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked, WP:AGF was not about faith in miracles. With only two sourced sentences after four years, assuming a landslide of material would simply have no basis in the historic record. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous recreation of this article 

message: Apparently he's written a lot of books about democratic education as practiced in Sudbury schools. 
The issue should not be whether there's room for the material in Wikipedia, but whether it's more convenient for readers to have the author's life work crammed into the main Sudbury Valley School article, or to use WP:SUMMARY style. Personally, I find the main article flows better with just a brief mention of him. But I wouldn't mind a merge provided that all the information is inserted. 
The point is to avoid censorship, or the appearance of it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was never about censorship, but whether there is sufficient reliably sourced material (i.e. "significant coverage") to form a non-vestigial article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosopher and writer

message: The fact that Holzman places quotation marks around "philosophical writer" is a clear indication that she is not accepting attribution of the phrase -- whether she is quoting somebody else, using them in scare quotes or whatever. Unless the phrase can be explicitly attributed to somebody other than Holzman, I would suggest that it needs to be removed due to this implicit disavowal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide supra. Gabbe (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "philosophical writer" 

message: I would note that Nfitz's prefered version:
*Violates WP:SYNTH (see #"physics professor at Columbia University")
*Violates WP:NONENG which states that non-English sources are only "acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." As Gabbe pointed out, Holzman covers this (in English, without synthesis, and not behind a paywall).
*Fails to provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG).
*Fails to demonstrate that Greenberg meets any criteria under WP:PROF (listed above).
As an WP:AFD is not required for a WP:REDIRECT, and as these congenital flaws had not been remedied since the article was recreated, I restored the redirect to the topic that is Greenberg's sole claim to noteworthiness (where he's included in a list of "staff"). If Nfitz considers any of the (very brief) material here to be noteworthy there (personally, I don't), he can always add it there. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *No! My "first point" is that it is a cold hard fact (as established by my 5 numbered points above) that your characterisation that "now that objections have been raised" was a gross misrepresentation of the state of the discussion. Facts are neither "assumptions" (of bad faith) nor (personal) attacks. If you don't like the facts, then that's not my problem. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further erroneous restoration