Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thomas Neill (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - while consensus is delete it is a borderline case on notability, such that in the future there maybe sufficient independent sourcing to warrant an article, at that time request restoration/recreation. Gnangarra 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Thomas Neill

James Thomas Neill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously nominated in December 2005, shortly after the article was created. Several reasons for deletion: created and almost exclusively edited by the subject of the article; no actual claims or demonstrations of notability (although there are references); and no evidence of notability outside WP (I get only 17 distinct Google hits for "James Thomas Neill" -wikipedia). I think it'd be polite to userfy it before deleting it, but can't see any reason to keep the article in mainspace. --DeLarge 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. --DeLarge 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. You don't have to add "Delete as nominator"; just filling out the Articles for Deletion itself counts as your vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know, it's just that I've seen a few procedural AfDs in my time where the nominator was neutral, so I just like to put my opinion in bold text for clarity, even though the closing admin (hopefully) won't just be counting votes. --DeLarge 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and probably well liked within his field, but unfortunately he fails WP:BLP (and then of course the conflict of interest). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, I like the article, COI yes but it was very neutral in tone, but for me to change my opinion I need a newspaper or magazine article on this person. Callelinea 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Delete. I did a little bit of research on subject, and I feel that there is enough material to assert notability. Also, although it is extremely COI, I don't feel that warrants deleting the article. Before I make a judgement one way or another, I'm going to attempt to source out the whole thing and NPOV it. Trusilver 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I just struck out on this one. I have been unable to find a single decent, objective source that isn't somehow tied to the subject. I even ran down the street to the public library to do a full-on periodical search and I still failed to find any biographical information. I'm going to say delete based on failure of WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:COI. Trusilver 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, although I cited WP:COI, I don't think that's the article's biggest problem. As User:Callelinea said, it's written in a neutral tone; WP:NPOV isn't an issue. I had a good look for sources myself -- in fact, I've pondered AfD'ing this page for about three months -- but I've strugged so far. Most of the claims of notability (e.g. the Articles & Presentations by James Neill external link which lists "Articles about James Neill") are in fact about his website, which I suspect doesn't meet WP:WEB anyway. I just can't find any reliable, external sources about the man himself. If you're going to work to keep this page, I think that's where you need to concentrate on. Regards, --DeLarge 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for "lack of significant coverage by independent sources" - All references are not independent. Corpx 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because I do not think a second discussion is really needed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Did you even take a look at the first discussion? Corpx 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it had a keep vote and a delete vote and then was withdrawn by the nominator, so seemed good enough to keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• One "Weak Keep" back from 2005 is enough to not warrant another AFD now? Corpx 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That and the nominator withdrawing it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CCC Read it. It's important. It's policy. Seriously. Trusilver 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. Have a nice night! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some hits for him plus Wilderdom on Google Scholar.[1] However, there seems to be a lack of biographical information available. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep 14 peer-reviewed papers, though most are in one very specialized journal. (None of them since the last AfD). Not enough if just judging him as an academic, but theat seems to beonly part of his career. all in all I think it passes the bar. DGG (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom SatuSuro 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, his "research" seems to be of the fringe variety. I'm not sure he meets the notability criteria at all. Lankiveil 11:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

just a comment that I don't think the criterion of whether he's fringe or notis directly relevant.DGG (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I meant that most of his research work appears in fringe journals and publications. I apologise, I should have originally been clearer. If publishing OR in the South Zillmere Journal of Psychiatry and Pet Care makes one notable, then by jingo, I'm in! More seriously though, if any of his work had attracted significant mainstream attention, I'd probably consider him notable. But it doesn't appear that this is so. Lankiveil 11:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per others supra, or userfy per TenPoundHammer. Bearian 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, between role as editor of Australian Journal of Outdoor Education from 2002[2] til 2004[3], jt-neill on Google Scholar, and his website Wilderdom which is widely acknoledged, there is notability here. John Vandenberg 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.