The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. See talk: and talk:Email. This person has recently been problematic for some overblown claims regarding their claimed invention of EMAIL, claims that have even been echoed from WP into major newspapers, to the embarrassment of all concerned. Many editors have been involved, some stripping the dubious claims, others (including IPs and accounts with few other edits) re-adding them. Whether this person is judged notable or not, the current article is a mess and warrants immediate and careful scrutiny. Some of the claims, whilst perhaps true, are nowhere of the standard to convey real notability, as judged by another competent worker in that field (see the talk: comments). Others, including the ostensibly simple "four degrees from MIT" are unsourced. Although that one does have a "source", [1] and from MIT too, it's not a reliable enough source for an article that has already been tainted by so many dubious claims and recycled press releases (as the current ref clearly is). Recently PRODed and tagged for notability, although these have also been removed. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. See talk: and talk:Email. This person has recently been problematic for some overblown claims regarding their claimed invention of EMAIL, claims that have even been echoed from WP into major newspapers, to the embarrassment of all concerned. Many editors have been involved, some stripping the dubious claims, others (including IPs and accounts with few other edits) re-adding them. Whether this person is judged notable or not, the current article is a mess and warrants immediate and careful scrutiny. Some of the claims, whilst perhaps true, are nowhere of the standard to convey real notability, as judged by another competent worker in that field (see the talk: comments). Others, including the ostensibly simple "four degrees from MIT" are unsourced. Although that one does have a "source", [1] and from MIT too, it's not a reliable enough source for an article that has already been tainted by so many dubious claims and recycled press releases (as the current ref clearly is). Recently PRODed and tagged for notability, although these have also been removed. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply