`    == The Commonwealth Medical College ==  David, is this article notable? Wim    ::A medical school is notable. As a part of a university , it almost always gets a separate article if there's information available. As a free-standing one  like this, it would certainly be notable, like all other institutions of higher education.  Plans for one that have reached the stage of intending to admit students for Sept 09 indicate that a great deal of work and funding has already been accomplishedit's analogous to film that is well into production. That preliminary accreditation has been achieved is also highly significant. it does need references, of course, and some more information. '   :::Makes sense, thanks!     FYI, the original editor TCMC has started adding text which is on the spammy side to the article. I've left him a note on his talk page asking him to either fully reference anything he adds or, preferably, stick to the talk page. Feel free to trout me if that's out of order.       == Offline from Torkel Franzén RfD ==  (I'm taking this offline from the Torkel Franzén RfD since we agree on the point that's relevant in that context, and I don't want to waste the project's time with ``meta`` stuff.)  Actually my ``review`` of Torkel Franzén's book would be very negative, but I'm asking for a keep, so I think I'm safe from the charge that I'm arguing for a keep based on my own review of TF's book.  If the math profession had reviewed TF's book that way I would, he'd be a ``delete`` for sure.  Though perhaps you were saying that I was making the case for notability based on my strong dislike of TF's book. -)  Actually no, though, it's just that I've gotten the sense that TF is well respected by others and I'm trying to figure out how to document that.  FYI, I've been in touch with the author of the best book on Gödel's proof for the layperson (Rudy Rucker, the book is Infinity and the Mind).  Rucker has never even heard of TF, despite the fact that TF's book criticizes Rucker by name.  That would argue for non-notability, but under the Wikipedian rules of evidence, it's just irrelevant hearsay, I gather.  I'm new to RfD discussions, and I will admit my attempts to state the case for TF's notability are awkward.  Thanks,    :::Absolutely. I understood that. Your argument there was perfectly correct and appropriate. I couldn't think of a better way to word it to clarify that.  But I thought it was a good place to make the point, because others had been discussing it on the terms.  And, of course as you realise perfectly well it doesn't necessarily mattera notable bad scientist can be notable none the less, just like a notable bad movie.  The actual quality is rarely argued in Wikipedia except on computer and math related topics, though once in a while the neuroscience people do similarly. Otherwise there aren't enough expert types to matter. (We will argue whether someone is respected, however, and this is usually done by analyzing the quality of the journals he publishes in or  quality of the publishers of his books.) My own feeling is the notability in this case is a little borderline, but there is some disagreement over whether it just includes people like him, or just excludes him. Typically it depends a little on subjectsubjects people disrespect get judged more strictly. '  `