Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Douglass

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was '''Keep 4, Delete 3. No consensus. Keep.''' -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Douglass
A physicist who once wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, he doesn't believe in global warming. If he is for some reason notable in his lack of belief (or for some other reason), the article should say so. Googling reveals some hits (possibly not for the same person), but nothing that appears very noteworthy. Tuf-Kat 00:45, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. I got a letter published in the newspaper too.  Can I have my own article?  Gamaliel 03:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Google Test turns up a number of David Douglass's, most of which are however not the man in question. I am assuming though he is the Professor of Physics & Experimental Condensed Matter Physics at Rochester University, homepage here . Has had a number of his works published in physics and climate journals. His research has created a stir in global warming circles. I'm voting a keep on this one. Megan1967 03:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not establish notability, as it stands it's a quote from a letter to the editor. Not sure he passes the average professor test. Nearly every professor has been published in journals in their field; you don't stay a professor if you don't. -R. fiend 22:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Current article does not establish notability.  Edeans 04:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I do not agree with Douglass, but his publications deserve some mention, as well as expanding his bio.  He's certainly a notable dissenter.  I've done a little bit of cleanup on the article, and I will do some more in a few hours. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Open scientific debate is very important, and the loyal opposition should get a fair hearing. 69.212.36.88 22:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * User since Feb 3, edits to only two articles.
 * Keep. The article would be of interest to readers looking for sources on both sides of the debate, as well as to those who had come across his name – perhaps because of the letter – and wanted to know a little more about him.  It's thin at the moment, so stick a stub template on it, or expand it.  (I think that he's wrong, but what does that have to do with it?)  And if Wikipedia only had articles on people that the average VfD addict agreed to be &ldquo;notable&rdquo; it would be limited to dead people, software gurus, and comic-book writers. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)