Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Durno Murray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Durno Murray

Mitchell Durno Murray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Does not appear very notable. Fails WP:BIO. Fewer than a dozen google hits which do not derive from WP. Only claim at notability is that he won a medal for amateur ornithology. Not enough. Wehwalt 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, he may pass WP:PROF, and his presidency of those organizations suggest a certain degree of notability amongst those who care about such things. Bucketsofg 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being President of the Australian Bird Study Association, itself a rather marginal group, for one year or less is hardly grounds for establishing notability. Eusebeus 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As an interested party in this (I created the page), I will try to add something to this stub to demonstrate sufficient notability. However, in the interim, please note that the amateur ornithology angle I am coming from is only one facet of this person. As far as judging notability by Google hits is concerned, one could try Googling 'Durno Murray' rather than 'Mitchell Durno Murray'. 'Mitchell' is seldom, if ever, used. Maias 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You might want to consider doing the same for the other winners of that medal, many of whom seem to have similar problems.--Wehwalt 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. It does put the spotlight on the notability (or not) of the Hobbs Medal. My feeling is that being awarded the Medal in itself makes the recipient notable. This is because a) it is a national award (rather than a regional or local one), b) it is made no more than once a year at most (i.e. they are not handed out like jellybeans), c) it is made by Australia's peak ornithologal body (the equivalent of the AOU plus the National Audubon Society in the USA, or the RSPB plus the BOU in the UK), and d) it is not made for 'amateur ornithology' but for 'ornithology as an amateur' (i.e. contributions to the science of ornithology, not recreational birding, by someone who is not being paid to do it, even though they may, as in the case of Durno Murray, be a professional in the biological sciences anyway). The equivalent, or sister award, for professionals in Australia is the Serventy Medal. Maias 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep strongly tending to delete. There must be a little more of note and some more sources to pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF and assuming that they could be included I am not suggesting deletion. Alf photoman 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The major source for this article is a book on ornithology which may establish his notability in the field. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added some material and references relating to albatross research to the article. Maias 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"*Weak Delete - seems a very marginal case. He's been published but referred to in only one journal article I can find but has no Australian news article and no books about him. Looks well published but I can't find any way that we can have verifyability from reliable sources. All of the bio information appears to be single sourced from the Bright Sparcs website.I'm happy to change my mind if someone can find that anyone else has written about him... - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Changing to keep - per some comments below but also a few days of searching shows that he is at the top of his game. Seems far more mentioned that most other people in Australian Ornithology - Peripitus (Talk) 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep do not be misled by the seemingly non professional name of the organization, it is the major National Ornithological Society, just as Emu is the major national journal. This is a notable person, who has done notable work. Unfortunately, most of his work predates the web. that he's an amateur makes it more notable, not less., and , re. the original nomination, the standard is not "very notable", but "notable." DGG 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently Emu is the national journal so winning their medal means he passes WP:Prof # 6. But that needs to be sourced not just claimed.Garrie 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article needs improvement especially sources, theres appears to be a confusion over the definition of "amateur" in that this AfD infers its as the negative performance where as the award uses the "unpaid" efforts definition. Definately a notiable person as per WP:PROF Gnangarra 08:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gnangarra. JROBBO 01:40, 21 January 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.