Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Davis (climatologist)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert E. Davis (climatologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Six-year-old tiny stub with no content to establish that he is more notable than the typical academic, i.e. WP:PROFTEST. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Doesn't a Google Scholar using "RE Davis" and climate yield quite a lot well cited papers indicating a pass of WP:prof? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC))
 * It might support that conclusion, but none of his peer reviewed publications are mentioned in his article at all. If there is evidence of significance, then by all means feel free to expand the article.  Right now there is nothing in the article to indicate he would be more notable than the average professor, and the article is where the evidence ultimately needs to be.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have made some cleanups to the article. He appears to pass WP:PROF (e.g. his "Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models" has over 500 citations in Google scholar, and "Weather and human mortality: an evaluation of demographic and interregional responses in the United States" has 193), and there has been enough media attention to his work that I think he also passes WP:GNG. Some lower-quality sources mention him in the context of skepticism about climate change, but I think we need to be careful about including that in the article; it appears from my reading that his position is more nuanced: he believes in global warming but is skeptical about some of the more dire predictions associated with it. In any case, what he does or doesn't believe shouldn't really affect our discussion about how notable he is, except that it raises long-term BLP concerns about keeping his article neutral rather than using it as a basis for advocacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep on basis of pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep. Found these non-academic references since others have pointed out academic notability: NY Times; he was the University of Virginia faculty senate chairman, 2003. Churn and change (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2012 (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.