Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie V. Woodcock


 * 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. There's at any rate no consensus to delete, and some of the "delete" opinions seem to be based on neutrality concerns that the current version no longer raises.  Sandstein  08:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Leslie V. Woodcock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article on a retired professor who gained a small degree of notoriety by making some very strange remarks on climate change in a newspaper interview, for example stating that carbon dioxide has not increased over the past century and citing the  Biblical flood story as an example of past severe weather. His academic career appears to have been typical for his discipline (a couple of papers per year, etc.) and I do not see evidence that he satisfies even the distressingly lax criteria of WP:PROF. Available biographical sources are quite thin -- most of the facts of his career are taken from a couple of conference blurbs. In the case of very marginally notable person such as this we should let the fellow live out his retirement in peace. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

KEEP as the BLP of a professor emeritus and scientist (not a climatologist) notable for his contrarian views. Woodcock is not a prominent academic, but his opinion that "Global warming is nonsense" was reported in an interview by the local Yorkshire Evening Post and subsequently covered in the UK by The Week and in the US by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. From there it spread throughout the blogosphere. Boris has ably described the stub and the events. I don't see how the BLP would threaten Woodstock's peaceful retirement, however. YoPienso (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite or delete without prejudice to re-creating it. Lots of good, thoughtful input here. I see the article was ill-conceived. A BLP should reflect the balance of its subject's life, not one episode. YoPienso (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Woodcock has a Google-Scholar h-index of 27 as seen here: LV Woodcock Google Scholar search results. This places him between "successful scientist" (20) and "outstanding scientist" (40). However, Google Scholar systematically and considerably underestimates h-index compared to the gold standard "Web Of Science" (which is behind a pay wall) because it is data-poor in earlier years. Give me a day or two and I will get a friend to do a proper citation study. Also, Woodstock has a single-authored Letter in the top science journal Nature, which is rare. He has a highly cited paper in THE top physics journal Physical Review Letters. According to Google Scholar, his top papers have been cited hundreds of times, and continue to be cited in top current studies, even though they were written in the 1970s. Very few physics papers written in the 1970s can claim such a distinction. His 1997 Nature paper materially contributes to the iconic and long-standing condensed matter physics problem of distinguishing the free energy of the close-packed polymorphs of hard spheres, which I used to teach in graduate condensed matter physics seminars. The man is one in a handful of leaders in condensed matter physics theory of glass formation and his work is cited by all the major books in the field. I vote that the article not be deleted. It stands on its own, irrespective of Woodcock's views on global warming that were reported in the media. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguably, the subject – Leslie Woodcock – could stand on its own. Unfortunately, the article we have before us isn't actually about Woodcock and his career, but rather (as I discuss below) about a minor controversy in which Woodcock was involved earlier this year.  If someone actually wants to write a biography of Woodcock, that would be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that a pro footballer can get an article after playing one game for a pro club in a pro league, even though he may do sweet FA (pun intended) in that game, I wouldn't consider the standards for professors to be all that lax. As to someone's peaceful retirement, I don't remember that coming into any of Wikipedia's policies. I may not have read every one of them, of course - has anyone? Peridon (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (unless stubbed into an actual biography and rewritten from scratch). While it looks like Woodcock himself could probably clear some threshold of notability (as the term is used on Wikipedia), the present Wikipedia article completely fails to demonstrate that. Fundamentally, the problem is that the article is mistitled.  The article currently located at Leslie V. Woodcock isn't actually Woodcock's biography, but rather is An exhaustive and overly-detailed analysis of some comments that Woodcock made to a regional newspaper in April 2015.  The vast bulk of the article – including most of the brief lead, the two largest of the article's three body sections, and all of the See alsos – deal with climate change, his views thereon, and the (mostly-blogosphere-driven) reaction to them.  Meanwhile, his entire Early life and career – from getting his PhD in 1970 through to the present – gets two sentences and no actual description of his scientific work.  The article is a WP:COATRACK, not a biography, and flagrantly violates WP:WEIGHT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Okay, I poked around a bit more, and the reason why the article is so badly unbalanced is because it was created to win an edit war to include Woodcock in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  Ick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Here is a passage I removed from my original statement before saving as I was unsure whether it was appropriate to mention: By way of disclosure, I created the stub in order to fulfill the last criterion for inclusion at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Also, here is a link to a comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris that appears to show his motivation in bringing the stub to AfD. Not that he ever cared for it, but he had previously displayed no urgency about its deletion. If Denis is right, both Boris and I were unaware of Woodcock's stature as an academician. YoPienso (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On a second read, you're partially correct. I didn't create the stub to win an edit war, but because I was pointed to a case immediately previous to this one in which User:Jess recommended, "just create an article if the subject is deserving of one." User:William M. Connolley reverted my restoration of Woodcock to the list after I created the stub. He reverted 3 times; I pulled back after my second revert. You can follow the conversation on the talk page. YoPienso (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I did my homework before submitting this and was aware of the general bounds of Woodcock's stature. As I have stated elsewhere he seemed to be an entirely competent, workmanlike senior academic but not particularly remarkable (or "non-notable" in Wikispeak). As another aside, my nomination may surprise some -- given that I am known to broadly accept the findings of the scientific community regarding climate change, combined with the article's "look what nutty things those contrarians are saying" tone. But I don't think that keeping the article is the right thing to do from either the Wikipedia or the human perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your homework overlooked a lot. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * keep, at least as a stub. I did the "Web of Science" analysis that I mentioned above. Woodcock has an h-index of 30 (H), 135 records (R), has been cited in the scientific literature 4071 times (T), and his top three papers have been cited 521, 392, and 273 times (C3). Here is a comparison with a few other UK scientists that have Wikipedia articles: -- Kevin Beurle H 13; R 24; T 954; C3 233, 157, 117 -- RW Cahn H 38; R 311; T 5159; C3 272, 231, 198 -- DJ Axon H 49; R 236; T 7446; C3 296, 246, 222. I have PDF files of all this (Citation analysis reports from Web of Science) if anyone needs proof. Like Cahn, Woodstock is a leader in his field, with well-cited influential papers. Both are in the broad area of materials science; metallurgy; condensed matter physics. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These numbers are rather common for senior academics in the physical sciences at research-oriented institutions. If Woodcock is indeed "a leader in his field" he should have received a number of major prizes or awards. Is there any evidence of these? I'm not really dedicated to deleting the article and am willing to be convinced either way, but need more evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Boris, I gave citation numbers for top three papers that are larger than those of many scientists with articles, and you reply to give evidence of major awards or we delete. I think citations for top papers is a good indicator of a scientist's impact. I don't have sourced data for Woodcock for memberships and awards and keynote invitations. It's a stub. I'm glad your not really dedicated to deleting the article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that awards and the like are objective measures of notability that don't require us to do our own citation analysis, which gets us into WP:OR territory. If we can find evidence of major awards then we can all pack up and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * comment -- Boris, the opposite is true. Citations in the scientific literature is one of the most objective indicators you can have (is one's work being used by other scientists). Awards are among the most political indicators (the selection process is not democratic), and there is a domino effect with awards. High recognition in a field is often not accompanied by major general awards. My comment is meant solely to temper your assertion about what is "objective" in deciding notability of a scientist. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an enormous body of precedent in AfD for using citations, precisely because they are one of the most objective indicators. I repeated Denis' analysis and found the same results (please my see !vote below). Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC).


 * keep, article at little funky but worth keeping.CSvBibra (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit down Right now it is a wondrous "straw man" article -- the big mention of "Noah's Ark" was clearly en passant as it was mainly a point that some of the great deserts were once flooded (which climatologists actually agree with) - and it is taken well out of context in the BLP. NPOV would also suggest that having 95% of a "biography" be devoted to using a sledgehammer of "he is wrong" material seems not a worthwhile effort. We do not need to have such a clear imbalance, IMO, on any BLP.  We should trust the reader to note the disparity between his views and the scientific consensus.  List his bona fides, mention that his position is not that of the scientific consensus, and recognize that is quite sufficient as a rule.  By the way "Chemical Thermodynamics" (sometimes called "Physical Chemistry")  is not a field for doddering folks ... it is directly and strongly associated with mathematical modelling of heat changes, chemical reactions and the like, and is the bane of many chemistry students.    The person is notable - but the entire BLP could be whittled down to under 200 words total. Collect (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 200 words would be a very generous estimate. If we take out the fifth-rate sources that have no business in a BLP (seriously, conference blurbs?), and avoid the inherently WP:OR process of doing our own citation count, all that's left as properly-sourced material is the climate craziness. Absent the climate stuff there is no article. Zip. Nada. Not a word. We should delete the present article without prejudice to re-creating it if decent sources become available, allowing us to write a balanced overview of his career. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. He has highly cited works in molecular dynamics, so he may well pass WP:PROF. He appears to have no particular expertise in climatology. To cover the climate change material, we need to do what we are doing now: clearly state his views and clearly describe why they are counter to the scientific consensus. But this makes our article come off as a borderline attack article on an elderly subject whose views are stuck in the past and who revealed those views once in a moment of indiscretion. And why should we even care that someone is wrong about something he has no expertise in? I would be willing to see the article kept only if the climate change material is entirely removed from it and it is reworked to describe his actual life and works. But even that would leave it open for more subtle pov-pushing by the climate deniers who will try to hint that his work in molecular thermodynamics gives him some credibility in global temperature change, and then point to the Wikipedia article as evidence of his credibility. And given what has been revealed above about the article's history and the pov-pushing that has caused it to exist, I have no faith that such a reworking is possible and I think deletion is a better option than leaving it in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Apparently, he was the person whose original Fortran program was used by MATLAB with permission. Cursory search found this.  His notability on statistics and statistical analysis relating to chemical reactions etc. is pretty good.  The University of Manchester still lists him simply as "Professor."    He also received a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship  apparently.   Collect (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A cursory examination of the source you found – – in your "cursory search" reveals that you have entirely misunderstood the Fortran/MATLAB situation.  Woodcock apparently wrote some small Fortran programs that someone found useful enough to reuse and rewrite portions of in MATLAB code; that's all.  There is no indication that Woodcock had any particular involvement in the development of the MATLAB software package. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A cursory look would find Sandlers' books are --- used by MathWorks . And the claim is that MathWorks distributed the "translations" of the Fortran programs - which is what Mathworks acknowledges.  Woodcock did not write MATLAB,  but others did use his works, and MathWorks just happens to also distribute those files.   Woodcock does happen to be notable for his computer modeling, and the single strange "interview" with its host of strange typos is what seems discordant at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Full professor at a major British University. Major record of scientific contributions, as recognized by an expert in scientific notability, though he voted !delete for other reasons.  How is  the comment  "But even that would leave it open for more subtle pov-pushing by the climate deniers who will try to hint that his work in molecular thermodynamics gives him some credibility in global temperature change, and then point to the Wikipedia article as evidence of his credibility"  compatible with making a NPOV  encycopedia? We report things as they are, not electively in order to accomplish a social purpose.  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on h index the use of raw h index as a notability criterion is nonsense. One has to look at the actual distribution of citation. h index ignores the significance of people with very highly cited papers, : A person with 5 papers each cited 500 times and 20 papers cited 5 times would have an h index of 5; a person with 25 papers cited 5 times each would also have an h index of 5, though the first would be highly notable and the second insignificant. People are judged by the level of their most important work. As an analogy, Harold Russell had only one significant film role, but he won an academy award for it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG, agreed, but maybe "nonsense" is too harsh. H-index is one indicator for career scientists and is reported by "Web of Science". Note my emphasis, above, on the citation numbers for the top three papers, and my comparisons of Woodcock in that regard to a few other UK scientists with articles. Look at the numbers. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment on h-index. Strictly speaking, it is nonsense to say that using h as a notability criterion is nonsense. As with many tools, proper use requires care and one must avoid misuse/misinterpretation. High h is generally a reliable indicator of notability, however, low h is not necessarily an indicator of lack of notability. A quick looks at someone like Galois confirms the latter. Moreover, fields like the humanities generally disseminate results through vehicles not yet within the h knowledgebase. In short, h is a useful tool for notability assessment, if used properly. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete, per Boris. But also on the grounds mentioned by YoPienso: the basis for this article seems to solely Woodcock's GW-contrarian opinion. It appears to be a coatrack for embellishing the count of "contrarian scientists". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This discussion is only for debating notability, not content...and notability is crystal clear. Woodcock has a long string of very highly cited publications for which he is the first, sole, or corresponding author. Citations are (from WoS): 524, 392, 302, 251, 193,... numbers that far exceed the impact of "the average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC).
 * The content of the article does not show that he is notable for anything but his contrarian opinion expressed in this single interview. That his achievements and impact are not notable enough to be mentioned even in his own article suggests that his notability does not warrant an article in the first place. The content shows that the notability and existence of this article arises solely from Woodcock's contrarian opinion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think TenOfAllTrades expressed all this better (above). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I really should not have to explain to you the distinction between the notability of the person, as conclusively demonstrated by his citational impact, and the content of an article about the person. Woodcock is demonstrably notable, irrespective of what this or any other article on him says. Case closed. Agricola44 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Mr. Johnson, you said "That his achievements and impact are not notable enough to be mentioned even in his own article suggests that his notability does not warrant an article in the first place." With respect, that seems rather circular, in the light of the short history of this article. The proposal to delete was hasty, and apparently motivated by wanting to exclude Woodcock from the article about a list of scientists with views questioning or contrary-to the dominant views about global warming. This is a stub. It can safely be assumed that the relevant content on the instant talk page will be inserted into the Woodcock article if a positive verdict is reached. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it appears that the creation of this article was apparently motivated to include Woodcock in the list of GW-contrarian scientists. The initial formulation of this article shows that it was created solely on the basis of that single interview. That additional material could be subsequently added to enhance his notability does not change this, does not change the fact that the article is currently in violation of WP:WEIGHT, nor that the article would still amount to a coatrack. How long of a lever arm is implied when a single interview in the Yorkshire Evening Post entirely out-balances the impact of 70 peer-reviewed papers? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer: Remove the horrid "interview" which is clearly ill-written at best. Leave in a genial and respected scientist for what he is properly known. Collect (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the interview is the best-sourced component of the article. If we remove the interview there is no acceptably sourced material remaining -- the resulting article is blank. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This assertion is incorrect. There is a large precedent that citations are independent and can be used to source simple statements of biographical fact, e.g. that a person worked in area X or discovered Y, etc. You can remove the interview and still write some NPOV content on his enormous scientific accomplishments and this will be perfectly acceptable, even if the article remains a stub. Agricola44 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
 * I created the stub but since I don't own it I can't just blank it. I've reverted all the content just now with appropriate edit summaries. Sorry for causing this unnecessary trouble. YoPienso (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Article reverted to an early version, minus the bit about climate. It's a simple stub with a few uncontroversial bio-facts – in good position to be expanded with his scientific accomplishments. Agricola44 (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
 * comment: The position stated by Boris seems absurd to me. If we can't use Web of Science to provide citation and impact data for scientists, including where the citations occur and the impacts of the citing articles, then we are truly in a sphere of utter nonsense, in my opinion. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agricola44's revision of 07:05 26 Sep seems a passable stub. (I'm not quite sure what Boris was getting at.) However, there still is a POV issue. Even if Woodcock's contrarian opinion is not mentioned, that is still the reason this article exists. Consider: to boost the visibility of scientists who have contrarian opinions without proportionately boosting the visibility of non-contrarian scientists biases the overall representation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason the article was created or the reason it exists is irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether Woodcock satisfies any one of a number of WP notability guidelines and it is clear that he does indeed satisfy WP:PROF c1, specifically in the context of his research work having been noted (cited) thousands of times, as documented by a standard citation database (WoS). Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Mr. Johnson, your point is difficult to follow? The only question before us is the viability of the Woodstock stub. The apparent motives of some to kill it and motives of others to keep it are not part of the keep/delete criteria, as good faith should be assumed. Likewise, any/all links to other articles should be considered an advantage, without projecting bias regarding what those links are, or will or could be. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The stub was abysmally sourced -- the only sources were conference blurbs and a predatory open-access publisher. (And anyway the latter didn't even mention the fact it was supposed to have sourced.) I removed the worst. The remainder still is poorly sourced (seriously, conference blurbs?) and thus is technically in violation of WP:BLP. But I have let it stand in order that we have a basis for discussion.
 * That's been my argument all along -- we just don't have enough decent sources about this guy to write a biography. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Denis: Your objection to mentioning apparent motives rings hollow in that you're the one that raised the matter of motives (see ). While it would be naive to think we are all pure and innocent, it need not amount to a violation of AGF that ordinary biases, proclivities, and inclinatiions can lead to an unbalanced point of view. E.g., it would be quite mundane and quite understandable if a GW-denier simply and innocently wanted to fill out the roster of his/her "team". And there would be no problem if several "proponents" did so for the other "team". The problem is that the proper proportionality need to maintain a neutral balance is over 20 to one.  And if those "proponents" fail to rise to the task we then have an imbalance.  We normally don't worry too much about such matters as long as there is a rough balance.  But as you seem to be aware, this article is an element in an on-going dispute (and occasional edit-warring) at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  So it is warranted to "look behind the veil" at why this article was created. And at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming there is explicit mention of creating this article for the purpose of inclusion in that list. Quite aside from whether such a motive is good, it does lead to imbalance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read why I created the article. To this watcher, the page seems to boil down to a struggle between a faction that wants to produce a long list of scientists who oppose the consensus v. a faction that wants to show hardly any oppose it. That's not how we're supposed to edit. YoPienso (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC) OK, so I've created a little stub. Now, not because I want a bigger list, but because a notable scientist has made statements against the IPCC's conclusions, should he be added to the list? YoPienso (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) At the time I thought the coverage in the Yorkshire Evening Post, The Week, and Mother Jones made Woodcock a notable contrarian. Now I think that interview was a one-off, and I see no further ado has been made of it. Therefore, it's not as notable as I thought. Woodcock probably is, but hasn't left a cyber trail. YoPienso (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. An h-index of 26 in an avergage cited field passes WP:Prof comfortably. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
 * That's quite ordinary for an end-career academic in the natural sciences at a research-oriented university; if anything a bit to the low side. I don't doubt your word -- but if our criteria are that loose it's disturbing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I think we should all know, the sample space of WP:PROF is not, nor ever has been limited to "the natural sciences at a research-oriented university". Rather, WP:PROF covers the entire education sector, which means that Woodcock's stats (e.g. thousands of journal citations) are far higher than the "average professor". The criteria are not loose, as evidenced by the numerous academic AfDs that end in "delete". Moreover, there is an enormous gradation within different sectors of education in terms of scholarly output, which I think is summed-up well by something DGG has said a number of times: "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable". Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Do most "full professor[s] at a major university" have an article? If not, is there any bias in the subset that do? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how these questions are relevant to assessing Woodcock's notability, but my sense is that the fraction of profs from major research universities having WP articles is probably still not yet very high. Agricola44 (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC).
 * The notion that "a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable" says many things about the Wikipedia community, none of them good. (And that's a mild version of what I was going to say.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but that suggests to me that you're not familiar with the intellectual impact that, as a general rule, these people tend to have, nor of the documentation thereof. Might I ask what sort of alternative notability criteria you would have us use? Agricola44 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
 * The lack of documentation of impact is precisely the point William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the discussion above? The conclusive nature of the documentation of his impact has already been furnished: "Citations are (from WoS): 524, 392, 302, 251, 193,... numbers that far exceed the impact of 'the average professor'". These are quite a bit higher than the threshold that exists for WP:PROF. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Read the current version of his bio and weep. This is not the bio of someone who has made a mark on the world William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that, because the article does not competently list his accomplishments, you believe he does not have these accomplishments? Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. Have a look now. I spent about 10 minutes on a quick literature check and summarized a few (of many more) of his accomplishments in which he is acknowledged by name in the referring paper. (Again, the existence of these accomplishments was already demonstrated by citations above). I'll weep all the way to the inevitable "keep" close. We've wasted a lot of time in this AfD. Please close. Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Inspection of the cited references show that for two of the three, the author was a collaborator of Woodcock and a co-author with him on several on the papers that he cites. The prototype for this would be using commentary by Jones to support notability of Smith because Jones speaks well of the work by Smith and Jones (as well as that of Smith individually). So while it's a step in the right direction, it's hardly independent evidence. The third article is closer to the mark, since none of the authors apparently are collaborators with Woodcock.

Look -- as I've said before, I'm not against having an article in principle. But we've got to do better than saying "he must be notable, we just can't find the evidence" (or in your words, stating that because we can't list his accomplishments doesn't mean that he doesn't have them). It does seem we are moving toward discovering notability, but in my view we are not quite there yet. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have the evidence: thousands of citations, far above average professor, named theory, many firsts, many sole, first, or senior-authored high-impact papers, etc. etc. I cry Uncle. Clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This article will be kept by closing admin because of overwhelming evidence of notability. Have a nice day. Agricola44 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Summation. The article, as it stands at the moment, is an NPOV stub (sans climate bit) that clearly states his scientific notability. Whether or not you all want to quibble further on the climate bit et al. is up to you. As a disinterested participant who had never heard of this person, this AfD and much of its discussion strikes me as having political overtones of trying to quash the article because of some unrelated things the subject claimed. Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Commendations to Agricola44 for his correct use of the word disinterested. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, kudos for being aware of the finer nuances of language. The personalization of what should be a principled discussion -- "I'm embarrassed for you", as only the most obvious example of several -- not so much. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I !voted "delete" above (now struck), but that was when the article was a climate-change-denial-and-rebuttal coatrack. This new version, avoiding any discussion of climate change, seems much more keep-worthy to me. I worry whether it can be maintained in this state, but maybe that's not an appropriate reason to delete any more. And as I already said in the earlier part of the discussion, I think he passes WP:PROF for his actual scientific accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2015 (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.