Talk:John Emsley

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:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Don't delete, sigh...

As usual someone has decided to speedy delete something rather than check notability on the talk page... so, sigh, I have to waste my time writing this defence of the article instead of another page on WP. Sigh. Anyway, the guy's notable - loads of books and a page on the Royal Society's website. And here's an OUP page on a book of his saying he also writes/has written for the Independent (newspaper). Enough? Malick78 (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough. Where are the secondary reliable sources establishing notability? Publishing and even writing in a newspaper is not a measure of notability. Coverage in RS is. I think that if he has won the awards that it says, it does warrant notability under WP:PROF.

That said, if you do not want articles tagged as CSD, then organize and source them better before posting them, or perhaps use the handy {{underconstruction}} tag. This, I assure you, is much more productive than being uncivil towards editors following the community standards by using the CSD tag.--Cerejota (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to question notability - a notability tag would have been appropriate. That's what they're for. Going for a speedy delete was not the right thing to do... And not productive:) Malick78 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the time it was placed. You should be more careful, WP:CITE is not there for show.--Cerejota (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Emsley?

Is this the same J. Emsley that wrote:

Emsley J 1971, The inorganic chemistry of the non-metals, Methuen Educational, London, p. 1

We cite that work in List of metalloid lists, but it is not mentioned here. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Emsley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011114809/http://www.soci.org/SCI/awards/2006/html/hn328.jsp to http://www.soci.org/SCI/awards/2006/html/hn328.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]