Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. -- Jonel | Speak 02:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus is obviously to keep. Let me point out, though, that Wikipedia is still too young (at 4 years old) to have created a policy on articles about contributors who are somewhat well-known outside of Wikipedia. I only know of 2 or 3 other notable people who have contributed, like that guy who started Disinfopedia and some minor gay celebrity. The other 99.99% of us are just amateur volunteers.

We need to create a policy for this. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 13:44 (UTC)

You mean a policy "like don't create a page on your mate"? Or "admins should never close the VFDs on the unencyclopedic pages they created in the first place"? Oh never mind. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

[edit] William Connolley

del Nonnotable average scientist. No notable accomplishments mentioned. I have 20x more publications. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

  • Delete. It says something when he can't list his achievements but only a patently obvious statemnt global environment change is supported by the scientific community. It would make a good user page for User:William M. Connolley; better than the one he has already, though I know his name well enough around here that he should have known not to have written about himself. Wait until he gets a professorship or accidentally discovers yet another hole in the Ozone layer that the boffins at NASA missed. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • Keep on the general principle that an article that survived VfD four months ago should not be back on VfD when it is essentially the same article wiht some additional edits. DS1953 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)
    • NB. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/William Connolley did not reach consensus (only 5 votes). Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
      • NB. The nominator of the previous VfD didn't actually vote, so there were only 4 votes, of which 3 were "keeps" which would be a consensus (and mikka should not have edited the closer's conclusion in the archive to change it to "no consensus"). However, I would feel the same way if it survived a 3:2 vote that was called no consensus. There are better things to do than put up articles for deletion over and over again. DS1953 30 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)
        • NNBB. Many maintain that the default vote, based on the intention, of the nominator is delete, unless stated otherwise. Yes, I know there are much more useful things to do. But I am widely known as [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bureaucratic_Fuck Bureaucratic Fuck], when I am not writing articles about soviet political repressions. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
  • Keep, do a bit of NPOVing and userfy the list of publications. Subject is notable and it is not a case of Autobiography. David | Talk 30 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable figure in Antartic research. Kappa 30 June 2005 23:43 (UTC)
    • Proofs of notability into the article, please. At first glance, "William Connolley" -wikipedia" gives 135 unique google hits, and he is not the only william there. Geez, my own (real) name fares much better, and I even dont have blogs. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
    • Just to show my good will, here are some hints: was he elected to lead some organizations/committees, etc? Are his articles frequently quoted (as opposed, to plain graphomaniacs)? Was he honorably awarded for his work? If you cannot provide any of these, sorry folks. Keep him if you like, but I detest such "friendly" attitude.

Just look at his buddies from RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann (scientist), and weep. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

  • keep pointless re-listing; its not autobiog. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 08:51:36 (UTC).
    • Please answer my questions about your notability (assuning you are the man). Just point where the ifromation is, and I will gladly update the article. Unless I see this, I have no reasons not to question the notability. The article sat here for quite some time with nothing better than someone's POV that the guy believes this and believes that. mikka (t) 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
      • Its not "someones" POV. Its my POV, of course. Its a direct quote from me, hence entirely appropriate in the article. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 21:00:42 (UTC).
    • We don't normally let people vote on themselves. [Dunc, presumably]
      • Sez who? I'm expressing my opinion, which is that this re-listing is pointless. I'm sure whoever tallies the votes will take account of the fact that I'm me. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 10:18:19 (UTC).
        • I don't believe there is any rule that says people can't vote on articles relating to themselves. There is a prohibition on writing autobiography but that's an entirely different matter. WMC is entirely in order in voting. David | Talk 1 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be more notable than an average scientist with the publications and the blog. Also, there is no rule saying that people are not allowed to vote on themselves. (I remember there was one nomination which went along the lines of "I am the subject of the article and I am not notable", can't remember where it was though.)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am really bothered by the fact that Connolley has contributed to the article. He really shouldn't, and it weakens his position here in voting on this VfD, as it brings with it the suggestion of vanity. Secondly, I read over the link Dunc provided, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. It is not an official policy nor an official guideline, indeed, Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies merely describes it as an alternative test that has been proposed. VfDs like this one always confuse me. Jimbo states that the 2 primary rules are Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Connolley appears to be entirely verifiable, and the article does not actually read like vanity, per se. I really wish WP had a stronger set of official guidelines for situations like this. func(talk) 1 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
    • What makes it worse is that, as Wm Connolley has admitted to me, Ed Poor created the article in order to bolster his position in a Wikipedia edit war somewhere on global environment change. Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
  • Keep - for involvement in "Real Climate" alone he is more notable than a minor Pokemon character or an episode of DS9. His pubs make him (look) more notable than the "average" colllege professor (since this is based on American standards, and third author on a Science paper blows most of them out of the water). Guettarda 1 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Keep I could see it being non notable if there were no publications or anything but the publications and all seem to establish a fair amount of natability. Jtkiefer July 2, 2005 05:13 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I think WMC is notable for his position as a scientist involved in public advocacy (e.g. RealClimate), but I would really appreciate seeing something more tangible than a list of publications for the purpose of establishing notability as a scientist. How about an explanation of what WMC has done in his academic career that was important to our understanding of climate? Dragons flight July 2, 2005 22:33 (UTC)
  • Keep. I thought this was over and done with. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
  • Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 6 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article doesn't establish notability. Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
  • Delete, why should this article be kept? Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. It should be kept because the subject is verifiable and meets the threshold of bare notability (recently set at a new low with Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten.)
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.