Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Coburn (catastrophe modeller)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Coburn (catastrophe modeller)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Sources cited in article are not independent, and I was unable to find independent secondary source coverage. agt x 22:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, found a New Scientist review on Coburn's book Earthquake Protection - "This book is not aimed at professional engineers who can, at a price, design to withstand earthquakes, or at geologists whose objective is to understand earthquake mechanisms, but at government officials, planners and indeed anyone who might be involved in the siting of towns, designing relief strategies and, at a local scale, constructing properties. The book is well written, well illustrated and easy to understand and is recommended to anyone who is interested in abating the effects of earthquakes.", it appears to be the "go to" book for this subject if library holdings (about 700) indicated by Worldcat is anything to go by, so the book may almost be notable, also found a mention of Coburn here - NHQ: Earthquake Damage Analysis - A Joint Approach - "In early 1997, Dr Robin Spence, of Cambridge Architectural Research and Dr Andrew Coburn, of CARtograph, visited the NHRC and discussed the work they had been doing with the data contained in the EEFIT report", but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel disinclined to support this incompetently written BLP until it is made clearer what name he publishes under so a GS search can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
 * What reason do you have for thinking that he publishes under a name other than Andrew Coburn? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many people do the same. Look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Yes, there are people with the same name, or at least the same first initial and surname, who have published academic articles. How is that a reason to suppose that this subject might publish under a different name, or anything connected to the topic of whether this article should be kept or deleted? Do we refuse to evaluate articles because a subject's name is not unique in academia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We evaluate when we have found out what they have published. I haven't yet. Please help. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom, WP:TNT, and WP:NOTRESUME. The page uses peacock-y terms such as "is known for". By whom? For what? Why? Bearian (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, added earthquakes project to article talkpage so project participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient publications and reviews.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:15, 22 December 2016 (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.