Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lambert

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'Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:PROF. Blog stuff is no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Leibniz 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. scope_creep 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough; blog is notable; ref'd by wiki Ross McKitrick William M. Connolley 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per William M. Connolley. JROBBO 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Barely Keep Sounds notable but it really needs to be expanded, maybe giving examples of some of his work.Firelement85 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- politics may be involved in the nomination, but the article should be expanded to outline Lambert's arguments and findings (and criticisms of them, if any), rather than just being an access point to a blog. There also should be some biog deatails, if this ia a biography--Grahamec 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Delete In current form--Grahamec 12:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Politics may have been involved in the article's creation. Andjam 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Has not troubled Google or Google Scholar. Nor can we justify based on Ross_McKitrick#Criticism_of_a_McKitrick_paper? Finding a bug in somebody's paper earns you a line in their page. It doesn't earn you a page of your own. If the article is expanded to outline some notable contribution, then keep as per everybody above. But if the article is not thusly expanded by the time this AFD closes, then it should be deleted. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm currently refraining from !voting, but the article lacks any reliable non-self-published sources. Andjam 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a lecturer with a Blog is not as notable as a well published professor. nothing in the article or websearches I've done satisfies biographical requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to have published anything. Hasn't really done anything notable, as far as I can see. Lankiveil 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. Not recognised as an authority or published by any mainstream media. No research accomplishments that distinguish him from thousands of other junior academics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goanna drinking (talk • contribs) .

Comment - first edit by Goanna drinking. User registered in 27 August, so appears to be a sleeper account. Andjam 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not seem notable enough. --Roisterer 06:43, 20 November 2006 (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.