Talk:Graham Nicholls

Improve Article

I will attempt to improve the article using the sources linked to. If anyone has an image of the artist or other information please let me know. Thanks, Maria N (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavinsky2 Edits

i requested clarification from Gavinsky2 on why he removed the activism section from this article. I also asked if he had any supporting material for some of the statements he added. I have waited several days for a reply but haven't received one. I believe that as Gavinsky2 has no other edits to wikipedia and his changes were largely negative towards the subject the article should be reverted to its previous state. However, Gavinsky2 did make some changes that I feel were valid, therefore I will attempt to add these points in a more NPOV way. Maria N (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Gavinsky2 Edits

---

Nicholls claimed work with Sheldrake has never moved beyond blogsite speculation and general PR hype into the world of actual peer review science. Almost three years ago Mr Nicholls may have had a brief name-check on a personal website of a fringe-science researcher but has that actually materialised into anything beyond the subsequent Wikipedia publicity inflation by the inknown Maria N ? I t hink not, but I would be grateful if you could post details of *any* peer-reviewed scientific work by Mr Nicholls before making such accusations of "vandalism" on my part. Even the fringe world of parapsychology publication seems completely devoid of any mention of the alleged "expert" Mr Graham Nicholls who has no official relationship AT ALL with the Perrot-Warrick Fund at Trinity College Cambridge which you mention here. Please specify and clarify the relationship Mr Nicholls may have with this endowment or else delete it forthwith. Please bear in mind the potential for personal embarssment Mr Nicholls may find in futher public investigation of such claims made on an established and very well known University College. Additionally I am very surprised that such an obscure figure as Mr Nicholls should warrant a Wikipedia entry based on nothing more than slight internet presence (mostly his own blogs) and a Staunch Wikipedia support from a certain Maria N who would seem you have more than a certain personal connection to the man himself and who with any honesty should declare that herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinsky2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I will be removing the notability tag based on the following:

A short search online in Google books and general search, plus looking at the old edits of this page bring up plenty of links that establish notability (at least to an acceptable level):

Books by other authors making reference to Graham Nicholls:

The potentials of spaces: the theory and practice of scenography & performance, Polyamory in the 21st Century, Handbook of the economics of art and culture, Volume 1

Books by Graham Nichols:

Avenues of the Human Spirit; Navigating the Out-of-Body Experience: Radical New Techniques

Press coverage:

The Daily Express: Thursday July 14, 2011; The Weekly News: August 6th, 2011; BBC Radio 4: Beyond Belief, Mon 15 Feb 2010; The Independent Newspaper, 2009; BBC Online; The Sunday Times; Kindred Spirit Magazine, 2009.

Others are also listed on the page, including numerous podcast interviews.

Public exhibitions/appearances:

The Cambridge Union Society; The Science Museum (large-scale installation as well as lectures in 2004); The Theosophical Society; The London College of Spirituality.

It seems to me that being invited to speak at the Cambridge Union and The Science Museum would show a degree of notability.

That's as much as I have time for now, but I feel that shows notability. It can be a complex issue when dealing with someone like this as there are often skeptics who wish to delete such articles. Solar (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that

1. Mention in books is not sufficient. Our notability requirements require "significant coverage" in the source used to avoid just this sort of claim.
2. Images of alleged articles are both unreliable and copyright violations. Things republished on the subject's site, blog, or Facebook page cannot be considered reliable. Cite (and link to if possible) the actual original articles, but do not link to copies of them hosted elsewhere than the copyright holder's website.
3. You claim appearances at several venues, but you provide no independent third-party sources that support that these events occurred. It's not sufficient to just assert these things, nor is a list of appearances on the subject's website sufficient to establish this either, you need to add the sources such as reviews that show that these events were notable.
4. The sources need to be cited in the article, following the text they support, not on the talk page. Currently, the list under the References heading are mostly primary sources. If these substantive sources you list exist, why have you not used them in the article?

Multiple editors have tagged this article pointing out the problems, but the tags have simply been removed without improving the article, leaving it with the same appearance of lack of sources and lack of notability that it had to begin with. Editors are not supposed to remove the tags until the problem has been fixed in the article. Repeatedly removing the tags without fixing the article is what has led to the repeated placement of the tags, proposed deletions, and this nomination for deletion. Simply fix the article as directed by the tags rather than removing them without addressing the issues. This is an article about a living person, and we require it to be properly supported. Yworo (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yworo, I'm just trying to be fair, I'm sorry if I wasn't able to cover everything in my reply, I am busy with other things. Here is the reference for Cambridge; The Science Museum; and The Theosophical Society. It seems to me that all of this, newspapers, books (by and referencing the subject), innovative art, major venues, as well as numerous interviews show notability by the standards set out in the guidelines. - Solar (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then add them to the article, if you don't do it, who do you think is going to do it? I am also concerned that the article does not meet our neutrality policy. It seems to have been written by his fan club. Surely a subject in this field has been subject to criticsm. Why isn't that also reported in the article? Yworo (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I will make some changes to the article in the new year, including adding the links and NPOV. I find it interesting though how there is an assumption about criticism. I notice that there is next to nothing criticising Richard Dawkins in his article, for example (no I'm not comparing Nicholls and Dawkins), yet Dawkins ideas have been criticised in whole books. I don't feel that Nicholls should have criticisms added just because he has has unusual experiences/opinions - that's just prejudice. Plus I have only found one vague criticism from James Randi, who in my opinion is a dubious character himself. Maybe we could collaborate to add fair and balanced elements to the article and get it to a point you feel represents other views, I'm guessing you are skeptical and would want that kind of tone included? - Solar (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)