Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Hausel


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Hausel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I started to look at this article which was written largely by Dan himself - firstly to remove puffery and some of the Who's Who vanity scam awards from the American Biographical Institute which are more an indication of gullibility rather than notability. After looking at what's left, I'm not convinced this passes WP:ACADEMIC so I thought I should nominate for further discussion. Many of the sources are primary, or local in nature. -- nonsense ferret  17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment He clearly does not pass the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). His martial arts claims seem of fall into the same category as the "Who's Who" ones.  I have no opinion at this time about his academic notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. His academic qualification may be readily ascertained from GS but an h-index of 9 does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete Fascinating character, but the only significant coverage of him on the web appears to be at this Wikipedia article. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Ray  Talk 12:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the material on the books at WorldCat is sufficient to show him an expert on his subject. I less confidence about judo, but the material from BlackBelt reprinted here would seem enough to show notability if bB is a reliable publication.Lack of '"significant coverage  on the web" is not the same thing as "lack of significant coverage".  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite prepared to accept I've got this all wrong, but wouldn't notability be based on the things that other people write about Dan and his studies, rather than the things he himself writes? nonsense  ferret  01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless better sources emerge. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete Seems like he'd be an interesting guy to have a beer with, but I didn't find signficant coverage of him in independent sources. The mention in Black Belt magazine was in a section where people could send in things like info on scheduled seminars, upcoming events, tournament results, etc.--not what I'd call a reliable source.  Martial arts halls of fame are not considered indications of notability and there's nothing to show he meets anything in WP:MANOTE.  I was checking his publications and the books seem to be self-published and many of the other publications were pamphlets and brochures from the Wyoming State Geological Survey where he worked.  I couldn't find anything by him in major geology journals.  There's a lack of good independent coverage and seems to be a good example of why WP discourages autobiographies. Papaursa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After further digging I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep. My reasoning is in a comment below. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I followed-up on the WorldCat holdings of his (many) books, and they're all low-to-mid 2 digits – very small for a fairly popular science/hobbyist topic like rock-hounding. However, he is also frequently quoted in the news on technical issues in geology, e.g. in the Mail Tribune, Rocky Mountain News, and The Denver Post, which means he is recognized as an expert. The article itself is a mess of WP:PUFF and, if kept, all the karate stuff et al must be removed (easy to do) and some of the news sources added (also easy to do). Article will probably be a stub at that point, but this is perfectly OK. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
 * I see where you are coming from, but I just get the impression that coverage is a bit 'localised' in nature. --nonsense ferret  20:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt the same way, but the deciding source for me was him being quoted by CBS . I would like to have seen more coverage of him, but I think there's enough to show he's considered quite knowledgeable in his field.  That was enough for me to change my vote.  I agree with Agricola's assessment of, and his ideas for, fixing the article. Papaursa (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I take on board your points, I don't think that is an unreasonable position at all. I probably won't withdraw the nomination yet though. I think he does a job of state geologist which involves writing the geological survey which is published each year, and I suppose anyone that does that job would have as many articles to their name, and probably a few mentions in the press.  I have to decide whether is this role notable in itself? for me probably not.  Then I think well is he so distinguished amongst other people that do similar jobs that just involve publishing geological surveys each year and sometimes talking to the local press? Is his contribution to his field more significant than just doing this non notable job? For me probably not, but I do respect your view entirely and I'll happy to move to whatever consensus seems to develop, but if its a keep, i do think the article needs quite a bit of work, so well volunteeered :) --nonsense  ferret  03:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject meets academic guidelines. In addition, a Google book search turns up over 400 books and articles written by him.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific about which ones please, and secondly as above, notability depends on what other people write about you, not about what you write. --nonsense ferret  20:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agricola44 detailed above why this subject meets academic guidelines, and I support that conclusion. The subject is obviously not an academic all-star, but easily meets Wikipedia guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2013 (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.