Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Volk


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Volk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. Some non-notable G-hits. Unreferenced, and I can find no notable references. Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line''' 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: No matter one's thoughts on the Gaia hypothesis, the subject's 1989 Nature paper, and the fact that it's been cited 136 times by other refereed journal articles (according to Web of Science) support the assertion of notability. Four books published by mainstream houses (Wiley, MIT Press) and a long publication list offer further support. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Another single-authored paper in Nature, (Sensitivity of climate and atmospheric CO2 to deep-ocean and shallow-ocean carbonate burial, Nature, 337, 637-640, 1989.) & others in major journals. Several major books by major scientific publishers, including Wiley Springer, Columbia Univ Press, & MIT Press.  Inadequate article, but there's enough info available for it to be expanded. This is by far enough academic work to considered an authority in his field and to be notable.(FWIW, he does not seem to be one of the people who think Gaia is literal, not just a metaphor) DGG (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Agricola, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Prominent enough as a supporter of Gaia that he might pass wp:bio; and good reasons to pass wp:prof.John Z (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per DGG. Nsk92 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2008 (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.