Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Leahey

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. Consensus is that clear evidence of notability does not exist. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Leahey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find very little evidence of notability for this individual. He is the president of a Canadian outfit called Friends of Science but appears to have no independent notability. There is a bare handful of mentions of him in Google News' archives [1] but he otherwise seems to have attracted little public attention. This biography is a stub, linked from only one other article in article space, with only one source and no references to indicate that he has any notability on relation to anything other than Friends of Science. I propose that it should either be deleted or merged into Friends of Science. ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several news articles mention Leahey, for instance, these two:

He has a Ph.D, has published numerous peer reviewed papers, and is president of a highly visible and controversial organization. The article has stood for over three years. I vote it be left as is. FellGleaming (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. He's the "principle scientist" of a Government of Alberta agency, equivalent to a department chair. See WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that? His CV, which is cited in the article, doesn't seem to mention it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't find it. Mever mind. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Volume of publications and his role in AGW debate warrants inclusion. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here at Bearian's suggstion expecting to try to say keep, as I tend to support inclusion of non-mainstream people if I can find a plausible reason, but I must say the opposite--looking at the available information shows not only that there is no evidence of notability, but that there is strong objective quantitative evidence that he is not notable. He does not even come near to meeting WP:PROF on the basis of the extent to which people cite his work: Scopus gives the rather striking situation of a great many papers in respectable mainstream journals, but few citations to any of them: the cites are 7, 6, 6, 5, .... and h=4. Twenty-five of the forty papers have never been cited by anyone at all , and a substantial number of what cites there are, consist of self-citations to his own work. He works in an area, micrometerology, studying local wind flow and pollution. It seems an area where most works are cited considerably more than that. I can not see how his scientific work possibly shows him as an authority. If he is notable, it is as President of his society. His society does not seem to have enough importance to necessarily make his presidency of it notable, and he himself does not seem to be referred to in any specific capacity. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything would vote to keep him just on his professional background alone. It is his position as president of FoS, and his role in the AGW debate, that makes him notable. FellGleaming (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Notability is inherited". In actuality the notability of each article's subject has to be established independently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn. Thepisky (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion and my second look at the sources. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems clear from the above discussion that he does not pass WP:PROF. We could consider WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE instead, for his climate change denialist activism, but the only news coverage I can find that mentions him does so only trivially as part of stories about his advocacy group Friends of Science. The group itself appears to be notable (although too much of the article we have on it is self-sourced) but not to the level where its president would also be notable ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spoonkymonkey`s reasoning mark nutley (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those arguing to delete, I would ask you contrast the notability with Leahey -- 80+ papers and president of a highly visible think tank -- with the Wiki entry on another ex researcher who has far fewer published papers, fewer cites, no current notable status of any kind, yet has survived several deletion attempts. FellGleaming (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A good point, but it doesn't quite apply. Both articles are ex researchers involved in the same area. But more importantly, I'm not arguing for inclusion based on the presence of this other entry; I'm merely asking editors to consider a firm and consistent set of criteria for what they consider notability, and apply it evenly. FellGleaming (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As DGG has outlined even with his reported 80 publications, they are of so little note that he clearly fails WP:PROF. Also fails WP:BIO Even with the recent presidency of the Canadian organisation (FoS) he has had little or no coverage as an individual for his views on AGW. Those arguing for keep have thus far failled to present sources to show that he is individually notable. I see no significant news coverage of him, only trivial stuff as mentioned by David Eppstein. As a final comment per WP:OTHERSTUFF there is more detailled news coverage on me in more major outlets and I don't have an article ;) . Polargeo (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is to be deleted can it be sent to my userspace please. Unless FG wants it in his of course, i`d like to work on this when time allows mark nutley (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.