Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Smith (marine biologist)

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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith (marine biologist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Current sourcing includes some primary sources, some brief mentions, and a semi-in-depth article, although it's mostly an interview. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and he does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see adequate sourcing (e.g. Youtube as sources) to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. I've added a few RS. I agree that notability is not super strong but I feel there's sufficient to justify the page and meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the added sources are in-depth about the person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the interview is (you concede that above). Deus et lex (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect for your significant and voluminous contributions, that does not seem to be true and appears to be a widely misused and misunderstood proposition: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." (see Wikipedia:Interviews). Cabrils (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Comment - Cabrils is absolutely right, this claim is consistently raised and incorrectly cited. The real question is whether the source is promotional or not and reliable, not whether or not it is an interview itself. This one is clearly a valid source and can be used for determining notability. Deus et lex (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - you are both incorrect. The WP policy, PRIMARY, states, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (emphasis mine). Further, note "D" in that same policy lists interviews as primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is correct. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not - that policy is put in the context of op-ed pieces and is dependent on context. There is no blanket ban on interviews establishing notability - the question is whether they are independent enough or promotional. I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that they can't be used. Deus et lex (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing the interviewee says, whether in quotes or not, counts toward SIGCOV for GNG. Neither do primary descriptions of the subject or interview setting. And neither do interviewer "summaries" of statements the subject made. That leaves us with very little material from the interview--not enough to meet SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing an NPROF pass here, and the sourcing doesn't look to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has been edited with the goal of improving it, I still don't see how it passes NPROP, much less WP:SIGCOV. Adjuncts are dime a dozen (I was myself for many years), and are rarely notable unless they do something else important. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2022 (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.