Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Connolley (second nomination)

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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW and apparent joke nomination. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Connolley

William Connolley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

NN WP:BIOgraphy: just some scientist. His only claim to fame is that he contributes to WP and the like. Note also that his buddy Ed Poor authored the article. April Regina (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is now the 5th AfD on this article - and most of the rationale seems to have been "he is a wikipedian". Nothing has changed since then (except that the article has improved). Naming User:Ed Poor as WMC's "buddy" is rather funny though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO (namely WP:PROF). Represents non-notable academian. Being on a fairly popular blog is not something I see in the criteria. Not regarded as significant in his field (climate research or software engineer). Published research is not "well-known," given the lackluster citations from other academics. Has not contributed body of works or concepts that have been particularly meaningful to climate research or software engineering. Lacks notable awards or honors. The only real claim of support I've seen is "he's my friend" or "he's an expert on Wikipedia" or "ex-member of blog." People who point to previous AFDs refrain from discussing the issues of any relevance or importance. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notabilty seems to be established. Dreamspy (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Do people talk about him? Yes. Has he published stuff of academic note? Yes. Does he spell his last name funny? Yes, but lets not hold that against him. Nick Connolly (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The result of the fourth nomination was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SNOW. It is not the case that the previous AfDs had insufficient community participation to say that there is clear consensus on this matter. Nothing new is offered in this nomination that was not addressed and disposed of already. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This isn't really questionable for me, he's not just some academic - meets WP:PROF. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Look, if you're nominating an article for the 5th or 6th time, you've got to present some new reasons it should be deleted. The old ones repeated here have been decisively rejected quite a few times, so this looks like AfD roulette. Also, the fact that this AfD nom is the nominating account's first contribution of substance to Wikipedia (other than a bit of history-padding back in October) is a huge red flag. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It does not look like he has made a sufficiently big impact within academia itself. GoogleScholar gives only two highly cited papers, with several co-authors, (citation hits 68, 64) and after that the citation rates drop precipitously. His H-index appears to be fairly low, only 7 per GoogleScholar search. There is some coverage of him in mainstream press in relation to climate change controversies, but I found only a few such newsarticles and he is not covered by them in substantial detail but rather in passing (the Nature and the New Yorker articles are mentioned in his WP article, but I also found a few more by doing GoogleNews search). It certainly does not appear that his opinions on the issue of climate change are quoted regularly in the mainstream press. So he does not seem to satisfy either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Absent some new information, I think the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I get the h-index to 15 (with publish&perish), using W.M. Connolley - the name is sufficiently unique that it doesn't get false positives. (and i did check ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I am changing my vote to Unsure. I'd like to hear from some-one familiar with the climatology/climate modeling field about what whould be considered a high citation rate there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scopus gives him a h-index of 11.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kim and Mastcell. Also, the peculiar contribution history of the nominator doesn't inspire a good faith assumption from me either -in this, the 5th instance of this article's nom for deletion. Dubiously, R. Baley (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominators name and the date in her claimed location suggests this nomination was not meant seriously.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

missed that one. good enough justification for a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; we've been over this before, and he still seems to be notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (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.