Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard C. Duncan


 * 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 redirect and keep. Duncan found not to be notable - there was borderline consensus to delete and redirect even, while his theory was found notable but not of such notability as to confer notability to Dunacn. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Richard C. Duncan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible BLP sourced entirely from sources published by the subject of the article. No evidence that it meets the general notability guidelines. Seems to be known only for a self-promoted peak oil theory that itself was never particularly notable. Spasemunki (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Also nominating this related article which has the same sourcing and notability issues:


 * Comment: The first question is probably not whether Duncan is notable, but whether the Olduvai theory is notable; after all this was, as his 2016 The Seattle Times obituary put it, "his opus." And if the theory is notable, Duncan would presumably be "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." As far as the Olduvai theory goes, there's plenty about it: both widely cited articles written by Duncan, and consistent discussion in secondary sources (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For what it's worth, there's also a decent amount on Duncan: e.g., 1, 2, and 3. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple of these still have the self-reference problem- in the case of the obituaries, it's not clear that this was a news story vs. simply a notice that was supplied by the family and archived, and the alumni magazine is self-supplied and provides no meaningful biographic details. The Sakellariou book discusses Duncan's theory, but it seems most of the rest aren't much more than a footnote. The obituary does suggest this shouldn't be tagged as a BLP, though. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * When you say "most of the rest aren't much more than a footnote," are you talking about Duncan, or the Orduvai theory? In the first four articles I linked for the theory, it's pretty prominent: mentioned in the title of two ("Algeria energy production, population growth based on Olduvai Theory" and "The Olduvai Theory and Catastrophic Consequences"), and in the first two sentences of the abstracts for the other two. But yes, I agree that the alumni magazine and obit don't independently demonstrate Duncan's notability, though they could be used to build out his article. His notability is probably tied to the notability of his theory. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just Duncan- it seems there was more available discussing the theory than it initially appeared. If the additional references were incorporated into the article I would say it appears to solve the notability and self-reference problem for the theory article. The biographical article could be merged, but as it is no longer a BLP and we have additional sources I can see a case for keeping it as a stub. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, . I've added those five articles to Olduvai theory; ideally they will be incorporated into the text, but for now, at least, they help demonstrate notability. I've also significantly expanded the article on Duncan, largely based on the Seattle Times obit. There's actually more there than I was expecting; in particular, his work on the "ORE Plan," which the obit describes as the first curbside recycling program in the United States, might be worth writing about (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4). But I think it probably works for now. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So far we have delete for Duncan, but no consensus yet for his theory.
 * Delete The article is only sourced to his work, so there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if he is mostly known for a notable theory without sufficient coverage of him personally, then this should be a redirect to the theory. buidhe 05:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete bio article The subject's sole claim to notability is the Olduvai Theory, so a personal page isn't warranted. As for Olduvai theory, my opinion is Keep. Despite being found incorrect, the External Links section now shows that it has been referenced by several others. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep theory article and Redirect Richard C. Duncan to it, seems that his theory has been referenced enough to merit an article. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, and , if the Olduvai theory theory is notable, then why is Duncan not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , "notable" and "significant" are not synonyms. In my opinion, inherent notability for originating a new idea requires a higher level of significance than just to have an article on the theory. Einstein got a lot of coverage for his invention of general relativity (inherent notability), but this guy didn't have much coverage on him personally because his discovery was not that important. buidhe</b> 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with, and also add that the criteria you keep citing is explicitly stated to only be an indication of whether someone is likely to be notable for an article. ". . . meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." -- Notability (people). If the theory is, indeed significant as well as notable (and I'd argue that it isn't), this is still an example of when the basic notability of the subject supersedes any additional criteria he might meet. tl;dr: He has not received enough significant coverage outside of the theory to merit a separate article from the theory. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect  ; this article is too spammy and over-person in its emphasis of hobbys and families to keep in the history.  DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.