Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Sansom

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sansom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence for notability given (see WP:N, WP:PROF), even though the "notability" tag has been around since 2009. The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- agree as to non-notability of subject. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he may pass criterion 1 of the the WP:ACADEMIC guideline (Web of Science gives him an h-index of 13 with top citation counts of 96, 65, 61, 40, which strikes me as pretty good for paleotontology, if not all that exceptional), the complete lack of independent reliable sources (including for most of the info in the infobox) means the article fails to satisfy the WP:Verifiability policy, and as WP:ACADEMIC#General notes #3 says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". I did search Google Scholar, News and Books for suitable such sources, but failed to locate any. Qwfp (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. It is difficult to find a source that is more independent and reliable than a citation in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (putting aside self citations). The hundreds of citations here make for borderline notability; as another editor says, the cites are probably fairly good for palaeontology. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Where did you find "hundreds of citations"? Please add this information to the article. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: The Palaeontological Association thought he had made a "notable early contribution to the science" (2001) - hence the prize - and he has published (in Science and in Nature) and been cited well since. (I have added some refs to article) Would this ref, where his work is discussed, but he only gets a passing mention, in the New York Times help? Malcolm W. Brown "Evidence of Bone Shows Vertebrates To Be Far Older Than Once Believed" New York Times, May 29, 1992 [1](Msrasnw (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep—He did develop a new acid-etching technique that proved conodonts were the earliest vertebrates.[2] He also led a study that discovered an ancient shark ancestor that didn't have jaws.[3] These were covered in the press, so I think he has at least some measure of notability.—RJH (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please add the information that you found also to the article, not only here. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.