Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert James Diamond


 * 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. The independence of the sources has been refuted and as such GNG is not met. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert James Diamond

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

He gets lots of mentions, but simply not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG, and I can't see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics,  and Australia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (weak) keep I disagree, without having access to one of the main sources of the article "Comollatti, Jane (2012). Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa" it is hard to evaluate whether there is significant coverage or not. Given that the article mentions pp 14-25 it seems that there is at least 10 pages of material on this person in this book. It also seems like the author of the article (a very active editor) did put in the work to properly source the article and aggregate sources both online and offline to put this together, so I would give this the benefit of the doubt. Clearly a borderline case but I dont see any reason to delete the article (except pedantry). --hroest 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hannes Röst, that Comollatti piece is not independent as it's by a relative of Diamond. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Larded with in-depth personal detail and primary sources, making it difficult to discern whether there is any in-depth coverage or whether there is anything of significance hidden somewhere in the picayune life story. Article claims "He is best known for his work in the academic field." but provides no evidence for academic notability, nor can I find any elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.There's multiple sources listed where they either talk about him or something he had said or done. Newspapers in his area seemed to value what he thought. He clearly was somebody locally. A couple of the links like the obituary aren't really relevant to the argument, but for sourcing purposes, it's good work. A lot of time, effort and care was put into this and I think the OP did a good job in writing this up. It also likely seems that more information could be found to strengthen his case further. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are few sources here that comply with the "significant coverage" required by the GNG, but all the same one or two of those is enough. Many primary or less reliable sources, but they can be relied on for simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As the article currently stands it contains no evidence of notability for this person (in academia : no significant research output mentioned, no mention of his impact in education ; in politics : nothing significant). jraimbau (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per hroest, KatoKungLee. I've also added one RS. Cabrils (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Makes not claim of significance and is essentially is a framework article built piece by piece using a whole bunch of disparate sources to represent a whole that wouldn't necessarily be what the man was like during his real life. The 1940's, 50's and 60's are not some dead period where people of note were not recorded somehow as other folk who lived have and would have done in other periods. If he was significant, it would have been much more obvious. But it's not. It just a bunch of tiny facts glued together and none of it is significant. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV.    scope_creep Talk  21:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a GNG pass with the sources in the article, plus some sources I can't access look like possible SIGCOV (namely Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa which mentions him on 15 pages?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that source is by his cousin, about their family, and so is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since notability appears to rest on the potential that Antonio Comollatti & Ann Reed: Early settlers of Duaringa contains SIGCOV, it's worth noting that the author, Jane Comollatti, is Diamond's cousin. This means it's not independent and it's also likely the passages mentioning him are primary accounts of him rather than secondary commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to a comment from Comollatti calling Diamond her cousin. JoelleJay (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little sign of the type of impact we look for in academic notability.  I will comment that it is harder to assess due to his propensity to switch fields every few years, but also that this propensity makes academic impact less likely.  As far as GNG notability, there is the book, which at least shows circumstantial evidence of having been written by a relative; a bunch of inappropriately-used primary sources; and glancing human interest coverage in small town local news (which WP:RS says we should use with caution).  I think this is short of what we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2023 (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.