Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Clarke (ornithologist)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn as heading to WP:SNOW.

Michael Clarke (ornithologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO, WP:SCHOLAR,  gscholar, WP:AUTHOR gbooks. also see gnews. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Polargeo (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If nominator had done a GS search for "'Michael Clarke' birds" has would have found cites of 72, 58, 44, 32, 214... etc. h index = 11. Probably good cites for a field less popular than string theory. May pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. Award of D.L. Serventy Medal, top ornithological award in Australasian region, shows notability. Maias (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - although he is not a full/named professor or chair, he fits WP:PROF otherwise - he is a well cited scholar, and he got a major award. Bearian (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say the award is middling. Searching Google News by "Serventy Medal" does not reveal much lay interest in the award. There are only 5 Google Books hits for it. However, within the field, it is called "Australia's most prestigious accolade for ornithology", although that was written in 2009 by one Mike Clarke, lol. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Xxanthippe. LotLE × talk  19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Maias. Top professional award, lack of lay interest doesn't mean it's not important to the field. MiRroar (talk) 18:04, 9 February 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.