Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Duffy

: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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[David Duffy]]=

:{{la|David Duffy}} ([{{fullurl:David Duffy|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Duffy}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Professor does not meet notability standards for academics. Closest he comes is his editorship of a journal, but I would not call it a major, well-established journal (yet). Doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria. References are scant. Google turns up little relevance. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems to fail WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. He has many noteworthy accomplishments, but nothing to distinguish him from many other professors. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:PROF - almost 800 [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22David+Duffy%22+-DL Google scholar hits], full professor, editor of a major journal, teaching for almost 20 years, $Millions in grants; not by themselves notable, but together meets the standards. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I am curious whether the first two people commenting "delete" above are even aware of the existence of WP:PROF. Even if they were not, "many noteworthy accomplishments" usually does translate-- for anyone-- into "notability." As for the nomination, with respect to the journal being well-established, it's been published for over 31 years [http://www.waterbirds.org/journal], by BioOne, a major biological publisher. Not a very well written article, and it needs expansion, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But can the journal be considered major? Longevity does not necessarily confer such status. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Full professors at major universities are often found to be notable, after our editors have time to dig up material on them. University of Hawaii is not podunk, and a 'David C Duffy' search in Google Scholar gets 42,000 hits, of which I think he deserves about 30% since other people named Duffy also show up in the list. (I used a different search string than Bearian; not sure which is best).

:*Here is one paper that got 132 citations in Google Scholar: {{cite journal|url=http://www.jstor.org/pss/1939832|title=Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance?|journal=Ecology|date=1986}}

:* Here is another that got 128 citations: {{cite journal|url=http://www.jstor.org/pss/1521138|title=Diet studies of seabirds: a review of methods|journal=Colonial Waterbirds|date=1986}}

:These results suggest that when someone has time to do a proper writeup, there should be no problem finding notable work to mention in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Keep as per DGG. Matt Deres (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Keep. But article needs expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (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.