Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Clayton (geologist)
=[[Geoff Clayton (geologist)]]=
:{{la|Geoff Clayton (geologist)}} – (
:({{Find sources|Geoff Clayton (geologist)}})
Fails WP:PROF. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree! Unless someone comes up with more substantiating information, I would like this article to be deleted...--Gniniv (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The article claims that the subject made a prediction, but the source says something that is significantly different: a newspaper wanted to know the effect of a certain hypothetical event (if it occurred, what would result?). The newspaper approached the subject for an opinion. WP:BIO is clearly not satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that there was no prediction, but an analysis that if x, then y, and that his analysis was the response to an approach from the newspaper - the article is clear on this, saying Clayton " was asked by Seattle Weekly to evaluate the potential impact of a lahar on Seattle. " I see no evidence that WP:BIO's criteria are met here. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Googlescholar[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Geoff%20Clayton%22%20&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ns] shows almost no citability of his work (there is an astronomer with the same name, so the results have to be filtered out) and nothing else to show passing WP:PROF. There is a little bit of newscoverage[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Geoff+Clayton%22+geology++source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a] but not enough to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I'll admit that the article is really quite poor. However, WoS shows a geologist named Geoff Clayton from the University of Dublin (Author=(clayton g*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV DUBLIN TRINITY COLL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI) whose publications have around 150 citations, which arguably passes WP:PROF. Here is [http://www.tcd.ie/Geology/staff/gclayton/pal2geoff.php his homepage]. Is this perhaps the same person? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
- The Seattle Weekly article states, "a geologist with one of the pre-eminent engineering firms in the state, RH2." I'm going to assume it's not the same guy from the University of Dublin. Be a bit strange a Seattle based company to employ a professor in Dublin for presumably doing local geological work pertaining to their engineering work. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure it's a different guy. The Dublin Clayton has been at Dublin since at least 1989[http://www.tcd.ie/Geology/staff/gclayton/Pal5.php]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- True, but the more unusual form of "Geoff" in Seattle would also be pretty coincidental. Is there a way to confirm conclusively one way or another? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
- That would be going rather beyond the call of duty, but here is some additional circumstantial evidence. Here is a link to RH2's webpage[http://www.rh2.com/content.asp?CatId=95&ContentType=] explaining what kind of geological services they provide. I think the link makes it fairly clear that the kind of geologists they employ are not academics but rather technicians providing geological evaluations of various potential construction sites etc. So it seems most likely that the Seattle Clayton is not an academic at all but rather a commercial technical expert. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken – only concerned about someone notable falling through the cracks. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
- delete article as it stands now. If wikified, worked on and sourced properly, I can be persuaded to change my vote. Maybe. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. One local news story is not notability, and as it stands the article fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (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.