Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (3rd 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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Connolley

  • Delete Mr. Connolley, you seem like a nice guy, obviously know your business very well and are well respected by your peers, but do we really need every researcher listed on Wikipedia? I could list 1000's of other researchers as dedicated and seemingly worthy of being notable as you, but again do we need to fill the servers of Wikipedia with all of them? Thank you, and please it is nothing personal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Jiggy Fly (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has survived two previous AfDs. I cannot analyze Connolley's publications, but a number of people other than himself have seen fit to write about him on Wikipedia. The article is well-referenced and appears that the content is verifiable. Connolley's field is of interest to many people who believe that global warming is a key topic of the 21st Century, and I think the article is of interest to Wikipedia readers. --Ssilvers 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; though the article currently excludes mention of the Wikipedia incident which provided Mr. Connolley with much of his notability. I also note that the AfD is currently incorrectly listed. --EngineerScotty 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: every attempt to delete him just makes him more notable. Isn't the irony delicious? Mangoe 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Survived two previous AfDs and subject passes notability test. I question the motivations behind this nomination. --DV8 2XL 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AFD was not added to the daily log. Listing now. Fan-1967 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes notability, if not by a huge margin. Co-authored a publication in Science, sole author of a paper in GRL. I'm not sure how notable the other journals are. Like it or not, realclimate is well known within its field and William Connolley is one of their major contributors. My Alt Account 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Having said this, the article does seem a bit too focused on minutae, and it's sort of long relative to the amount of meat in it. I can see why it might keep getting good faith AfDs. My Alt Account 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Other researchers of similar stature don't get nominated for 3 AfDs within a span of several months. While I won't comment on the motives behind this current AfD (not knowing the user who generated it), it is manifest that many Wikipedians dislike Connolley, his science, and his politics. The truths he uncovers it seems are indeed inconvenient for many in power. --EngineerScotty 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I think that the problem is more Connolley's demeanor than his politics. He often makes little attempt to be polite/kind to people, even when they agree with him and are trying to help him (although he is sometimes rather amusing while being condescending). However, that is not a sufficient reason to remove a bio from Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A respactle researhcer, and, along with DV8 2XL, must wonder why this nomination was made.-- danntm T C 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and survived two previous Afds. HGB 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First AFD in February 2005. Second AFD in July 2005. GRBerry 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject certainly appears to pass the professor test per WP:BIO, and his publications would be verifiable. Ohconfucius 03:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Having surrived two previous AfDs, I would expect any crediable nomination to make a clear case why this nomination is different from the previous attempts, and thus why a different outcome could possibly be expected. A simple re-assertion of non-notability seems to border on harressment. Jdclevenger 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The research field subject of this article investigates is notable, and research done by this subject in the notable field is notable, and the subject himself is notable in his field. One has to question the motives behind a third AfD. WVhybrid 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep based on the evidence of subject's notability, past AfD survivals, and apparent bad-faith nomination. MikeWazowski 17:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he really is notable in his field, there is nothing in this article that supports the notability. There is very little account of new discoveries he has made. The description of his role in GCM modelling of sea ice does not make him stand out from many other GCM researchers. The article as it stands reads like a vanity article. This view is re-inforced upon examining the article's history, which indicates that he has been active in the editing. Lazybum 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • His pubs might not quite establish notability, but they're not exactly minor either: how often do you see a vanity article whose subject has been published in Science? But what clinches it for me is the realclimate work. His fellow editors there are generally notable, and realclimate is influential within its field. Frankly I agree the article reads a bit like a vanity article, but in reviewing the history, William Connolley's own edits all look kosher. I wouldn't blame him if you don't like the article; it would appear improper if he just re-wrote it. My Alt Account 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because "Group A" is important does not mean that one of its many members is important. I do personally know one contributor to RealClimate, and I am indeed awed by his accomplishments, but I do not believe he is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And just because Connolley has published in Science does not mean he warrants an article here. Lazybum 05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The subject is notable, give it a rest. RFerreira 05:18, 12 September 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.