Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Forsman


 * 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dick Forsman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced BLP. Proded but removed with a silly (best I can do) edit summary. His book clearly exists but I'm not sure how notable an expert he is. The mentions of his expertise are passing at best and have serious independence issues to be reliable sources.

Sources I've found include:
 * This press release calling him an expert (not independent I imagine).
 * Another press release
 * This webpage-based press release which may be proper if the organization are actually appropriate.
 * Here and here (again, independence issues).
 * Book-wise, he's thanked, cited or called a consultant here, here, and here Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. His book won a 1998 award, and his publisher has collected a raft of positive reviews from the bird-watching press.  Alas those are all 1998 era reviews from specialist magazines that are not generally online.  If you follow through to Worldcat you can get more independent reviews in the scientific press via JSTOR, but those publications are also not online for free.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable person in his field of study, a prolific contributor in the Finnish section of BirdLife International. See also an interview in Ornithomedia and a profile at the Tammi Publishers website (the third largest Finnish book publisher). His book was reviewed in The Quarterly Review of Biology. In my opinion, Dick Forsman meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC and the information could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources provided by Vejvančický make it likely that this person meets the notability guidelines in question and the sources that Edward Vielmetti mentions above further this assumption. Someone with access to JSTOR or similar should add some sources for it but based on what has been mentioned so far it's likely that Mr. Forsman is a notable expert in his field of study per WP:ACADEMIC #1. The amount of GScholar, GBooks and GNews hits where people reference to Mr. Forsman as an expert on raptors further serve to indicate this. Regards  So Why  13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear keep. The number of reviews and the award are more than sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC which is the applicable guideline as he is not a "creative professional".·Maunus· ƛ · 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * keep per additional sources listed above by Vejv. Passes both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a likely search term for raptor scholars Vartanza (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Established scholar in his field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (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.