Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Marshall (chemist)


 * 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Geoff Marshall (chemist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This chemist fails WP:NBIO. No reliable sources covering this person could be found, unlike for the presenter with the same name, Geoff Marshall (presenter). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - If he is actually a member or fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, then that is a pass on WP:NACADEMIC #3, but I can't find any evidence either way. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * He won the distinguished service award in 1993 (per ref 3 in the article), and the criteria indicate that it is open to "members of the RSC analytical division" which shows he is (or was) a member but I'm not 100% certain yet whether it is open to all categories of members, but it seems unlikely that someone who has given 10 years of distinguished voluntary service would be anything less than a member or fellow. It's not surprising though that sources for a research chemist mostly active before the internet are harder to find online than for a contemporary youtuber - not that the notability of the later has any relevance to the notability of the former. I'm leaning keep here, but it's going to take a bit more looking to be certain. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is another reference for him winning the award . The article could do with improving - the "active" years in the info box appear to refer only to his volunteer guide activities, not being an analytical chemist, so are a bit misleading. However, he does seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Since this is a division-level service award, I'd be surprised if it were enough to get past WP:PROF. I think it would be important to know whether he was a fellow or simply a member of the RSC. I haven't found any evidence that he was the former. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think the award is enough for WP:PROF and there doesn't seem to be anything else there. So the only possibility for notability would be for WP:AUTHOR for his travel books, but I didn't find the reliably published independent reviews that would be needed for notability that way. I'd be willing to change my mind if enough such reviews turn up (say more than one book reviewed, and at least four reviews total). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  07:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a member of the RSC, or any professional society for that matter, is not enough to show notability as some people seem to think.  Being a fellow would be a stronger indication, but there is no evidence that he is that and it would still only be an indication.  The society award does not seem to be an especially prestigous one; it was given to fifteen other people in the same year as Marshall according to the article.  He comes nowhere near a WP:PROF pass; his work, such as it is, has not had a significant impact.  Contrary to claims above, Marshall's publications from the 70s and 80s are easy to find online.  He has only a small number of published papers and gscholar shows low citation counts.  His later career as an author is an even more dismal notability failure of WP:AUTHOR.  Literally thousands of local history books are published every year.  There is no sign that any special interest has been taken in Marshall's contribution other than his own claim that London's Docklands is "award-winning".  He doesn't say which award and I can find no independent confirmation, let alone that the award is of any significance. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Anne Bennett Memorial Award recognises exceptional voluntary services over a period of years to the RSC Analytical Division - typically at least ten years. It's basically a long service award and doesn't pass the bar set by WP:PROF which requires 'a highly prestigious academic award or honor'. Nothing else here passes notability either. I'm sure he's a good man but he doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.--Project Osprey (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above comments, his achievements and membership of the RSC and the award for long service do not meet the threshold the PROF,and no other sources seem to establish GNG. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (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.