Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Lomax


 * 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. This is one of those easier closed by reading the comments rather than the bolded its. The argument that this is promotional and coi has not been refuted. AFD isn't clean up but nor is is leave to keep promotional material. The detailed discussion of sourcing is that what is there is not about the subject but their discoveries. That hasn't been refuted effectively. A look of the keep votes are assertions and get less weight due to that. I note that scope_creep starts off by voting keep on GNG but at the end after a closer review of the sources accepts they are not good enough. That sums it up. The sources appear to be ok on cursory examination but are too weak when looked at closely. For that reason I'm closing by the opinions nthat reflect detailed examination of the sources and the fact that PROF is clearly missed by miles. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Dean Lomax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article. Possibly notable but there is no evidence of this. most of the sources are written by himself. No independent coverage to show notability. Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - There is no reference of any of this....  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not 'self promotion' but is instead heavily referenced by various different, credible sources. To further elaborate this, I have included other sources for Lomax's work. I suggest he is deserved of a wikipedia page considering other palaeontologists of note are on wikipedia, such as Darren Naish, Matt J. Wedel and Mike P. Taylor. Lomax's contributions to palaeontology and society are of great significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino710 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)  — Dino710 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Article actually DOES make a good shot at showing notablity (There are BBC references, daily mail and everythingdinosaur.co.uk which should be plenty), and even if it didn't, we judge the article by doing a WP:BEFORE search. If the article is possibly notable, or is notable, which I believe it is; then I don't believe this search was done.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there may be a Conflict of interest that requires a declaration, but I think the subject is Notable. These would also go towards it, , , and it's pretty easy to find others. KJP1 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Nearly all of the sources in the article appear to be about the discoveries, not about the scientist himself. Of the sources that are about him directly, the everythingdinosaur.co.uk article appears to be a blog (though happy to be convinced otherwise, I'm no dino expert), the Rosie Winterton ref appears to be a press release from the local MP's office, and doesn't address the topic in any substantial way, and the Doncaster free press article also appears to be a short local news article about an upcoming talk by the subject. Clearly the subject is the topic of some buzz, especially in the local press. However, I don't think the bar of "significant coverage" (i.e. addressing the topic "directly and in detail") has been met. This is often a hurdle for academics, who are rarely the topic of secondary sources. For this reason, we have WP:PROF which provides other ways to tell if an academic is notable. This bar also doesn't appear to be met (according to SCOPUS, top work is cited 11 times). Perhaps someday this scientist will meet the notability criteria here, but I think now it's just too soon. Ajpolino (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a comment - I've been following this discussion and I see several sources have been added to the article. I still can't find any independent refs that address the topic directly and in detail, so I still see no evidence the topic meets GNG. I certainly don't think he meets WP:PROF, per above. If someone could detail why they think he meets WP:NAUTHOR or what sources convinced them that he meets WP:GNG, I'd be most happy to reconsider (Many of the keep votes here are not specific enough for me to follow). Ajpolino (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject's work has been amply recognized as evidenced by the cited reliable sources. The article could be improved on but the subject backed up by citations easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:INHERIT. Species are indeed notable, but naming a species doesn't make the person notable. The news articles are all primarily about the discoveries, not the discoverer. Giving lectures doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. Also in terms of prof, their publication history doesn't pass the average professor test. That the subject has had local museum exhibit based on him shows he might cross the threshold someday, but nothing quite satisfying PROF yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Well sourced, and notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not "well sourced" towards notability. It is sourced but a problem per above comments is that the sources that are not WP:primary are more about the discoveries than the subject. Reference to other articles, as a show of reasoning to keep, is often misguided. Darren Naish has a PhD, Matt J. Wedel is an associate professor, and Mike P. Taylor a PhD, so there are some apple and oranges comparisons going on. This is currently a terrible pseudo WP:BLP needing biographical content like a birthday, family, education, etc... but this has become acceptable even on a BLP. He is an honory scientist and has co-authored books, including The Bone Wars and Dinosaurs of the British Isles. He also appears to be well published in peer-reviewed papers and in scientific journals so appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR and the professor test. He has self-professed to having a "MPhil in palaeontology" working towards a PhD. A sad state of an article does not diminish notability. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a note that is doesn't appear they are that well published. The google scholar link you gave gives a lot of publications that Lomax is not an author on at all. I gave a Scopus link in my above delete comment showing they have only at least 18 publications and a pretty weak citation record in terms of h-index or otherwise. I haven't really seen an argument here yet that shows this person passes and average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Searching the Scopus link doesn't bring up even half of Lomax's studies. Google Sholar does, even some of his recent papers that have received wide interest. Regardless, how can you judge somebody from a simple Scopus link? It is clear from his personal website that he has published extensively in academia Lomax publications. Dino710 (talk) 10:15, 15 May, 2018 (BST) — Dino710 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then those publications (many appear to be more magazines than scientific publications), are not deemed noteworthy by the database. Websites like GS, Scopus, and Web of Science compile all this information as an overview about an individual's publication impact, so that single link is going to tell a lot. Google Scholar is generally not regarded as a reliable source for publication counts because it has a tendency to include a lot of gray literature in addition to including many articles not even written by Lomax. Scopus is also on that end of the spectrum for gray literature to a lesser degree, so that it doesn't include very much is a big red flag. Again, it's pretty clear this person isn't passing the average professor test. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I see the usefulness of scopus, etc., I don't see how you can simply judge an individual on the basis of his/her prof' score? It wouldn't matter if Lomax had published x5 for x500 papers, what matters is his contribution in his relevant field. This page not only mentions his academic contribution but other areas of his paleontology contributions, such as science communication and awards. So again you shouldn't judge this page on simply the prof' test, which, as above, is not reliable. I have been through the list of publications on Lomax's site and count 31 scientific papers and two books, among the popular articles. Dino710 (talk) 20:54, 15 May, 2018 (BST)
 * The average professor test comes from WP:NPROF, which is primarily what we use to decide whether a researcher gets an article or not. There isn't a single score being focused on with Scopus, GS, etc. metrics. It's the combination of relatively few publications (~18 in notable peer-reveiwed journals) and low citation counts of those articles. We also use independent secondary sources to show notability. Lomax's website would not be appropriate for that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, one cannot simply rely upon Scopus, GS, etc., to make a decision on the importance of the said scientists research. To reiterate what others have said and what is reflected on the page, Lomax's work has been highly profiled in various media outlets, as cited throughout this page. Dino710 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2018 (BST)
 * That's irrelevant for the purpose of this AfD. If someone's research is important (popular press generally doesn't count, especially local), that gets mention in the respective articles and doesn't inherit notability to a BLP page. If the researcher themself is notable, their work needs to be significantly recognized in the scientific field (e.g. multiple publications and citations) as one metric in the "average professor test" we use for these types of pages. Having a handful of publications and awards doesn't really pass that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, given the details of other paleontologists listed on Wikipedia. Lomax's research is significant if you are in the field of palaeontology, which is the point of this page, for others in the field to recognise his works. I also see that somebody removed the research section from the page, which has now been re-added. I don't know why that was removed. Dino710 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (BST)
 * Please remember that we do not use Wikipedia to promote people through BLP's. Doing so is another reason for deletion actually. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that deleting the research section without any justification is inappropriate. This is unjust and appears that you have a personal issue with this page. It was created simply to illustrate Lomax's contributions to paleontology, which is demonstrated and referenced on the page, so any paleontologists can quickly read this. Dino710 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2018 (BST)

Unfortunately, Kingofaces43 has unjustifiably removed the research section on this page. He has added reasons why on the research discussion page. Initially, actual links to the studies themselves were listed but then replaced with media coverage, as advised by others on this page. Could somebody please work out what is going on here? Why is Kingofaces43 unjustifiably removing the research page which is obviously relevant to Lomax? Dino710 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2018 (BST)
 * In addition, Kingofaces43 has also removed several important links, e.g. to public lectures at the Royal Institution and Cheltenham Science Festival, along with removing several of the awards. I have re-added them. I am not sure why, like those above, have been unjustifiably removed. This is beyond ridiculous but it appears the user is removing the content so that the page appears of little significance and thus can be deleted. Very poor. Dino710 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (BST)
 * Dino710, this is not the place to discuss content, you need to go to the article talk page for that. If the page actually does survive AfD, there was significant cleanup in terms of sourcing and removing promotional language needed. For this page, you and others need to demonstrate that the handful of awards and publications meet WP:PROF. Right now that's pretty shaky at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The sourcing is problematic. So far I havent seen one high quality source. They tend to be about his discoveries, instead of him. There is not single decent WP:SECONDARY source, that I put a finger on, and say yip, it is absolutely encyclopaedic, he is notable and is worth an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. GS h-index of 8 is far too small to satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (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.