Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaborg 2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

David Seaborg
I'm renominating this page for deletion. This is the second nomination; the page was first nominated on January 22, 2006. The result of the debate was keep. The archive of the debate is here.

Why it deserves to be renominated so soon: Many people voted keep out of concern that the nomination was bad faith and a violation of WP:Point. The previous nominator nominated 18 biographies of people in category:atheists for deletion after his own articles on Christians were nominated. I count 8 "keep" votes in the original debate that cited "bad faith nomination" as a reason. Hopefully, this time we can debate the merits of the article.

Why it deserves to be deleted: Besides being the son of a Nobel laureate - hardly an accomplishment - this person hasnt done anything notable. Hes the president of an organization not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. And he has a little more than 400 google hits. Delete--Pierremenard 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as NN. --Bugturd Talk 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Notable moments, quoted as major source in notable publication, published in industry journals, public speaker, listed in "Who's Who in America" per biography -- I don't see how he's non-notable. Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: he shook President Johnson's hand once; Ameritrade didnt want to let him bid on google and someone wrote up an article about it; published an academic paper; and gave a speech at an atheist convention. As for Who's Who, I admit it weakens my case, but it lists "110,000 of the nation's most noteworthy people" and "31,000 brand new listings" each year. --Pierremenard 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To delve further into that vein, he's also listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and Who's Who of Emerging Leaders in America. I do see your objections -- he's not a household name by any stretch, but he's good at what he does, and respected within a notable community. How much does it take, exactly? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I confess I am not sure of his importance as an "emerging leader" - you may be right about that. Nevertheless, as far as science in engineering, google scholar records 2 publications, 5 citations which definitely rules out his importance as a scientist/engineer. --Pierremenard 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a bit extreme to say that this "rules out" his importance -- it weakens his notability as a published scholar, but that's not the only facet of this individual. Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - I meant only that it rules out his notability as a scientist/engineer. You are right to point out that the google scholar result does not rule out potential notability as something else, i.e. as an environmentalist. --Pierremenard 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote remains keep. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough.--Gillespee 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not-notable, specially if looking for 'encyclopedic' reasons. Around 600 non wikipedian google hits. Mariano (t/c) 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (I think that looking at the number of google hits is stupid, and it seems that some retards keep using such criterion; just look for Mariano Cecowski in Google and you will see someone really non-notable. But the guy being nominated seems pretty strong. I give you the chance to revert your vote.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.4.11 (talk • contribs)
 * WP:CIV Eusebeus 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Eusebeus, thank you very much for the chance of reverting my vote. The google count was more a comment than a reason. I still think the guy isn't notable. Regarding the WP:CIV, you could take a look at it yourself. Good wiking, Mariano (t/c) 10:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mariano, You misunderstand. My WP:CIV was directed to the unsigned comment left in response to your vote!
 * Silly me, I should have checked the history. By the way, use the unsigned template for such occassions. Sorry again, and good wiking. Mariano (t/c) 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep Jcuk 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If he was notable as a scientist, this would show up in his Google Scholar search, which is low. If he was generally notable, it would show up in his Google search, which it does not. --Pierremenard 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The comment to which I was replying in the above (which was not Jcuk's comment) seems to have disappeared. --Pierremenard 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The earlier nomination was one of Jason Gastrich's string of revenge nominations as part of his vandalising efforts. This fellow is indeed very borderline and the earlier AfD was derailed by the issue of WP:POINT, as per the nom.  As it stands, I agree with the delete voters - not quite notable enough yet. Eusebeus 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Director of the World Rainforest Fund and son of the man who discovered plutonium?! C'mon, this is a no-brainer.  Scientists generally tend to have fewer Google hits than the average "notable person" ... but a lot more hits in the scientific literature.  Fight systemic anti-scientist bias on Wikipedia!  Cyde Weys  10:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So we're going to start listing family members of notable people now? - Mgm|(talk) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough. Nice if those red links could be filled out so we could get a better picture of the man. Marskell 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article describes him as a director of a couple of non-notable organisations and a failed fund raiser, and as such he lacks significance. Sliggy 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. And no, not simply because of the family connection. Turnstep 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person associated with non-notable organizations (the "World Rainforest Foundation," for example has only 97 Google hits. Makes Kadee Strickland look like Meryl Streep. Monicasdude 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like an OK article. J I P  | Talk 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other than being related to someone famous, it seems he raised $13,000 for his charity. Or 1.3% of his goal. If the amount of money he was able to raise is any indication of notability (and I think to an extent it is, being indicative of the level his work is at), he fails quite badly. -R. fiend 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The guy's more notable than Googling him makes him out to be, but I don't have time to dig out proof (hence the weak part of my vote).  He's a bona fide academic, lectures, writes for environmental journals, and heads up a couple legit non-profits. Ikkyu2 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete family relations don't confer notability. His only other claim to fame is the "World Rainforest Foundation", "Greater Lafayette Open Space Fund", et al., which apparently can't meet their fundraising goals.  In my opinion, that falls short of notability on simple precedent; Wikipedia does not have articles about other people who have started mre successful charitable organizations (Dan West of Heifers International or William Cunningham of Focus Hope for example).  I just don't see anything here that puts him (notability wise) head and shoulders above anybody I could pull off the sidwalk.--Isotope23 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article at present fails to establish any notability. --DDG 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep He does appear pretty non-notable, but now it's here, it's not doing any harm if it stays. We have more important things to do. SP-KP 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, he's more notable that me, but less notable than his dad. Per SP-KP, there isn't any harm in having the article, it's not a horrible article, it's not vanity, he's not a high school kid or undergrad that created his own article.  While the article's value to the encyclopedia is almost negligible, it's not entirely valueless.  The lack of existence of articles on the organizations is of little value to our discussion unless those organizations were deleted persuant to an AfD.  Non-existence is different than being propertly deleted.  Peyna 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. When this much rationalization has to go into why it should be kept, then it's usually because it really shouldn't be. --Aaron 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: There's just not enough information in the published record to write something substantial about him, that isn't him remembering his dad. (I say this as someone who tried to come up with more information, but couldn't.) Calwatch 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have more scientific publications than him (he has only one fide ISI's Web of Science), and have raised more money for environmental groups in which I'm an officer than he has (also, I've shaken hands with Al Gore;)), and I'm certainly not notable. This is not anti-science bias: notable scientists may tend to have fewer Google hits, but they have numerous and/or high quality publications. Being the son of someone notable isn't enough.--MayerG 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:11, 3 February 2006 (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.