In general, I think people are somewhat quick to reject something that can't be found in a textbook
They shouldn't; pretty much by definition, no crackpot has scientific credentials and all of those guys did. So it doesn't help them out any.
That was not a rejection of the paper - they just wanted to change the title.3. Nobel Prize in Physics (1969) awarded to Murray Gell-Mann for: "for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions"
Rejection: That was not my title, which was : Isotopic Spin and Curious Particles. Physical Review rejected "Curious Particles". I tried "Strange Particles", and they rejected that too. They insisted on : "New Unstable Particles".
Also not a rejection based on the paper - they just didn't have more space in the printed magazine for a few weeks.4. Nobel Prize in Medicine (1953) awarded to Hans Krebs for: The discovery of the citric acid cycle (aka the Krebs cycle)
They thought the conclusion was too strong for the presented data. A weaker phrasing there could have lead to acceptance.8. Nobel Prize in Medicine (1977) awarded to Rosalind Yalow for: invention of the radioimmunoassay (RIA).