Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Palmer (climatologist)

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Palmer (climatologist)

Paul Palmer (climatologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a bio of a semi-notable living person, and was blanked by the subject - see this edit from IP address 129.215.138.206. Note that that IP address corresponds to hostname elvis.geos.ed.ac.uk and that the subject has an official web page at http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~ppalmer/

I see that the relevant policy is inconclusive:

"When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is currently no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."

but I would suggest deletion. — Alan✉ 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Doesn't appear to be more notable than the average university professor. - Richfife 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of the subject's apparent opinion, there is no evidence of notability presented in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete it is appropriate to have the record for significant science workers , whether they are over-modest about it or not. He's a university lecturer, which is probably about midway between assistant professor and associate professor, and not necessarily notable . But he's written 32 peer-reviewed papers, and he citation counts for the highest at 72, 66, 62, h index=13. I can understand not keeping the article because of his apparent wishes--or was in just because the article placed him at Leeds and he's actually at Edinborough. I'd make a strong case if it had not appeared that he did not want to be included.DGG 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Doesn't help that the person who wrote the article can't spell Edinburgh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:01, 7 June 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.