English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Greg Retallack

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Greg Retallack

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

I passed this at AfC- mea culpa- I didn't notivce that the submitter was the subject. Which he has admitted on the TP. Therefore pretty clear CoI? Basket _Feudalist 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

COI isn't in itself grounds for deletion. He could still meet the guidelines. And you've nominated the wrong page! :-) Deb (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems potentially bent, that's all... and rectified my inability to discern one page from another!!!

Basket _Feudalist 15:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
As noted COI is not, in and of itself, grounds for deletion. It's certainly not going to help an article's case if there are other substantive problems, such as a lack of reliable sourcing or a weak claim of notability, but strictly speaking an article isn't deletable if your only case is the COI itself — if the notability and the sourcing are there, which both seem to be the case here, then COI can be cleaned up by simply having established Wikipedia editors give it a scrubdown for potential bias issues. Of course, if the scrubdown reveals that the sourcing and notability are actually weak or nonexistent after all, then a more substantive argument for deletion will be presentable at that time — but in the meantime we don't delete salvageable stuff just because the contributor was the subject himself. Keep for the time being, without prejudice against renomination in the future if cleanup reveals deeper problems. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep -- subject of the article appears to pass the notability guidelines; the quotations do a lot to justify the work as having made a substantial impact in the field. The COI should have been disclosed, but isn't itself grounds for deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per sources but stubbify down to lede to cull mind-boggling promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC).
Keep, clearly notable. Agreed it needs massive restructuring because as it is now it is a promotional page. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep and Stub is clearly warranted here due to obvious PR and synthesis. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (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.