Talk:Raymond Brock (physicist)

Peacock

@Silver seren, the addition of a news item on the 3 Nobel laureates is definitely WP:Peacock, name-dropping. It contains no encyclopedic information about him, there is zero evidence that he collaborated with them, just a passing mention. It falls foul of WP:NOTINHERIT, it reads as "he is notable because he worked where Nobel laureates work". The issue of not having enough independent sources has been resolved, your addition is making the page worse not improving it. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren, please read this BLP guide. You are making this page worse, not better:

1. About.me is self published. For an academic use their University as a somewhat curated source for personal infirnation.
2. A library copy of a PhD thesis is the conventional source. An AFOSR report is self-published, similar to an arxiv source.

I strongly suggest that you look at the pages of other academics and read the guide above before making any further edits. There are major differences between academics and others, which is why WP:NPROF has very different criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. 1) I didn't add any About.me source at all. That was already there. 2) How exactly are the Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports (STAR) from NASA a self-published source? Yes, they are a journal database collection of published theses, but that's better than an actual about me website page or just a link to the thesis itself, which is definitely a primary source. Secondary publication of the thesis title by NASA is a better option as a reference. Silverseren^C 04:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies about the about.me, that was not you. I removed that source.

I disagree that the NASA list is better. Those technical reports just republish what the grant PIs have sent them, no curation similar to arxiv -- I have written many, not even the program managers care. I replaced the report by a "Thesis" ref which is the standard you will find for the pages of most academics. A PhD thesis is a reviewed/curated source and a library copy is a secondary source. Typically the library has a pdf which is (for academics) the accepted secondary source, here it is a microfilm which is similar. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am Raymond Brock and this AI page amuses me. However, I do want to make a point about "Nobel Laureates." I worked closely with Jerry Friedman and Henry Kendall from MIT throughout the 1980s on an experiment at Fermilab that I was the scientific spokesperson for. I also worked closely with Leon Lederman from 1980 through 1982 when he was Director of Fermilab and I was a spokesperson. All three of these guys were good friends, were guests in my home many times, and two of them wrote letters for me throughout my early career. So "zero evidence" means you didn't look hard enough. ~2026-94429-6 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I resubmitted with very minor changes

According to WP:NACADEMIC, this article is more than simply just notable. Lots of third-party sources too. There is no reason to decline. If there is a very specific concern, please reply here. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm very close to the point of just moving it to mainspace myself, honestly. AfC is a really trash system. Silverseren^C 20:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Sounds good to me.

I also agree with that, WP:NACADEMIC should make submitting articles about notable academics really easy. Most people here seem to seriously overthink this. Example: PSA regarding Academic Notability ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)