This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 sourcedmust 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I have also removed the link to Nicholas Maxwell from the Category:Philosophers of science. The appropriate mechanism for adding articles to categories is to edit the article itself not the category page. --RichardVeryard 12:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
as demonstrated by the independent sources of the book reviews. Does need rewriting to WP stds. DGG 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Notability (academics) calls for something more substantial than a list of flattering book reviews. Unless evidence of Maxwell's notability is forthcoming which satisfies the stated Wikipedia criteria, I shall repeat my proposal for deletion. --RichardVeryard 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
N for academics as for anyone else consists of people saying they are notable in RSs, and published book reviews are exactly what establishes it for books and for authors, just as reviews establish the notability of musicians and dancers and performing artists in general and visual artists. First, the reputation of the publisher--and for UK humanities, Basil Blackwell and OUP are as reputable as one can get. That, and the the positions they hold. This article needs some more information of the biography to establish the positions; the one given sounds impressive, but may or may not be. It remains a very week article. Removing the quotations seems to have left the long description of the theory unreferenced--there should be some middle ground. DGG 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the stated criteria for academics don't mention book reviews or reputable publishers. (My own books have been published by Blackwells, Prentice-Hall, Butterworths and Springer, and have received flattering reviews. Does that make me notable?) The key issue appears to be the significance of the academic and his work, and I believe this remains undemonstrated. --RichardVeryard 08:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)