Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Leaman


 * 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. Shereth 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

David Leaman

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

Nothing here makes clear why this academic should be considered notable Grahame (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs work but there are sources which can be used to write an article and he also appears to have been published. Someone else with more experience can weigh in on how much he's cited, etc. but I think he's notable. TravellingCari  13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain Not notable as an academic. Based on Scopus, which is better for non-US academics, I do not see that any of his work has been cited anywhere. Whether is practical work is important, it's hard to say--the article avoids mentioning his present or past positions, but Cari's refs show he;s widely interviewed and quoted in the Tasmanian press. His popular books is reviewed in a non-scholarly local amateru's journal,and seems to be self published. Whether his travel writing is important, I cannot say.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep appears to be utilized as an expert in his field by both the Australian mainland as well as the Tasmanian governments, has written books on his field of expertise, has been a lecturer and researcher at the University of Tasmania in the aforementioned field, is widely referred to as a well-established and respected geologist, geophysicist and geohydologist and even volunteers in notable extracurricular activities (trying to save the forests of South Sister in retalliation against the Tasmanian Forestry Department) related to his field of expertise.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a general biographical article that could be written about any career academic or PhD recipient.  The article fails to identify adequate notability in accordance with WP:BIO or WP:PROF.  A plethora of interesting biographical minutiae is not a substitute for identifying why the subject is truly notable for Wikipedia's purposes.  Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you when you say, The article fails to identify adequate notability but I think the issue is whether the information is available vs. whether it's currently in the article. As I said above, I believe there is information available that provides notability and can be added to the article. If an article can be improved, it shouldn't be deleted. That said, I don't have the time or inclination to work on it, but there is no deadline and having something to start with is better than someone having to start over. TravellingCari  04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I did start this entry in support of some references for the entry on dolerite. It's interesting to see this debate because it highlights the trade-offs between 'notable' and a 'neutral point of view'. Let me rephrase this--- He is notable in Tasmania (partly) because of his work on dolerite, however does notable in Tasmania mean notable for the world? Now putting aside whether he is notable on the world stage as a researcher or academic, he is notable for his (life's) work on dolerite, a rock which is perhaps not very important to the world generally, but very important to life in Tasmania. I would argue to keep this entry because to remove it would be in conflict with a neutral point of view, at least if one feels Tasmania is notable it would be. I would thus argue the entry is important as part of 'supporting documents' for such a major/notable area on earth ( Tasmania) and an epoch in earth's history (break up of a supercontinent, possibly because of the Wilkes Land crater impact) then it should remain. If Tasmania is not notable then it should go. To understand Tasmania one must understand the rock dolerite and David Leaman has done a lot of work on dolerite (among other things). He certainly doesn't come close to the hoaxers on the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators list for irrelevance  --Meika (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe the question about whether Tasmania is notable or not, is not relevant to the debate.  It matters not whether the geographical/political region is notable; whether it is New York City or some little-known corner of the earth.  What is relevant is whether the article successfully demonstrates that the subject is notable for the purpose of an encyclopedia article.  The readership of Wikipedia is worldwide, and from every point on the spectrum in terms of education, age, culture and interest.  An article in Wikipedia must highlight sufficient notability to appeal to a significant (but probably small) proportion of the whole readership by the interest it generates.  I have argued that the article doesn't demonstrate adequate notability, but that doesn't mean subjects located in Tasmania are inherently not-notable.  If David Leaman is notable as described in WP:BIO or WP:PROF, an article on him must demonstrate that notability.  Dolphin51 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I don't really see this as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. First, Dolphin51 is quite correct: Meika's argument that notability of Tasmania somehow translates into notability of David Leaman is certainly not valid. There is a well-established principle in applying all notability guidelines which says that "notability is not inherited". E.g. being a relative or a friend of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Even more so, having written something about a notable subject (Tasmania in this case) does not make one notable. Similarly, the NPOV argument of Meika is invalid as well. WP:NPOV talks about how a topic is to be presented within a particular article, and is not applicable as a rationale for keeping an article. The key issue to be considered is notability of the subject, that is of David Leaman. First, let us consider the case for notability under WP:BIO. Leaman appears to be an active conservation activist in Tasmania and he may be considered for notability under WP:BIO on that basis. There are some sources (23 GoogleNews hits) given in Cari's search[sources. However, a closer look at them shows that there is very little coverage in these sources of [[David Leaman]] himself, as a person (his life, his accomplishments, his career, etc). Mostly the sources quote his opinion on various conservation matters and sometimes his name is mentioned as having spoken at some political event (e.g. ). No significant political or elected offices either. Not enough here to pass WP:BIO, in my opinion. Next, let us consider possible academic notability under WP:PROF. The basic case here is pretty weak. First, let me note, in response to Cari's comment ("appears to have been published") that having published something (or even a lot) was never enough to pass WP:PROF. It is generally necessary to show that one's work made substantial impact in one's academic field. In this case we seem to have a self-published book (Leaman, David, 2002, “The Rock that Makes Tasmania”) and no evidence of citability (high or otherwise) of his research in academic publications and no academic reviews of his work  either. As did DGG, I also checked the WebOfScience and Scopus and found nothing at all there. There are no academic awards either. There is one provision of WP:PROF that might possibly be applicable here: "An academic repeatedly quoted, as an academic expert, in newspapers or newsmagazines". (I must admit that this is my least favorite part of WP:PROF; it is rarely invoked and does not mesh well with the rest of the guideline). To some extent this criterion is indeed applicable here. However, the number of quotations is not sufficiently high (in my opinion). Moreover, in most instances he speaks primarily as a political conservation activist and I feel that political activism of any kind should be evaluated primarily under WP:BIO. All in all, I do not quite see this case as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nsk92's detailed analysis. --Crusio (talk) 13:42, 19 August 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.