Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Clarke (lecturer)


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

David Clarke (lecturer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person fails WP:PROF. He has not received third-party mainstream independent coverage enough to establish his notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep a degree of notability is apparent. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought from his listed publications. However, I have not researched these and just accepted the article on face value. In view of comments below I withdraw my support. --Dreamspy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep an expert on UFOs in the UK called on when they need a more sceptical take on things (folklore and psychology) and has a regualr column in the Fortean Times as well as writing a number of books on the topic. For nailing notability you need look no further than his leading role in getting Project Condign released, which got major media coverage: BBC, Guardian and Guardian again. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep- not all that notable but some mentions in WP:RS and his work releasing info from the MoD is perhaps worth him having an entry. Sticky Parkin 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence for notability. Almost no library holdings for the book, no outside sources for the importance of anything he's done. If Project Condign is notable, I do not see how it shows he is, just for placing a FIO request. DGG (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and DGG. Very little coverage by independent reliable sources, does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 4 October 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.