Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Orr

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. Concensus that this person meets the notability standard of WP:PROF (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Orr

Delete Notability not established per WP:BIO. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Thought the name looked familiar. Over 1k cites on his papers and books in just the first page. You wouldn't know it from the article, but he is a leader in the field of sustainable architecture (odd, given that he isn't an architect). A look at his Cv (or even the praise on the college website) would privode sources that can be found trivially to establish notability. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this person is so notable, why is the article so small in size? Size isn't notability, but one would think his Wikipedia article would be bigger than this. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people haven't put it in yet. There is no guarantee that notable information will make it into wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Protonk, information not there is not the same as information that doesn't exist _Cari^{Fellow Travellers} 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bulldog123 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF notability criterion in that his work is "widely cited by other authors in the academic literature", as per Protonk's link. Also evidence of general notability: interviewed in Grist, interviewed on the Paula Gordon show, profile as keynote speaking for Green Energy Ohio with lots of information on awards won books published etc, appears in feature documentary The 11th Hour as an environmental expert... and that's just from the first couple of pages of a Google search. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he clearly passes WP:BIO/WP:PROF. Deletion is not for cleanup (or for getting other people to do google search for you). Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable enough, especially per Ryan Paddy's sources. Maxa megalon 2000 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to even do a search to see notability - just click on the link to distinguished professor in the article and you'll see why he's notable. I even pointed this out when I removed the prod tag, so I was rather surprised to see this at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was me that added the prod that Phil Bridger removed. The prod was added in good faith as the article had been tagged for notability for some time. Seeing the article listed here I revisited Google and have made considerable additions to the article to help establish notability - of which now there is no question. Further edits welcome as is WP's style! Thought : Instead of merely voting keep wouldn't it be better to edit the article as well? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know how many articles pass through AfD every day? I mean...I don't think it is realistic to assume that editors watching AfD for articles like this actually spend all of their time improving those articles in addition to voicing their support for them. Some, sure, but to each his (or her) own. Besides, most of these articles are someone's "baby" and if we add sources here, they are liable to add them (with a little love) to the article itself. I'm not saying that all the effort should just be in arguing over AfD, but it is a different kind of pastime than adding content to WP, which for me is very slow and methodical. It is nice to just let it flow sometimes. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Man living in glasshouse shouldn't throw stones! I added a prod so I am certainly in the glasshouse on this one. OTOH Never mind the quality of the articles as long as the deletion logs are well done. Irony. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused right now. Who is throwing stones? What deletion logs? Eh? Explain it to me, as though I were a child. :) (reference lost on those who aren't Galaxy Quest fans) Protonk (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a self-deprecating apology, maybe with a dollop too much sarcasm. Looks like he takes your point. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present state of the article makes notability quite clear, both per WP:PROF and WP:BIO. The awards mentioned and the named chair/distinguished professor appointments would probably already be enough to pass WP:PROF. Also, Protonk's link to the GoogleScholar search results give convincing evidence that the subject is an author of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable enough.--Berig (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently more notable than the average professor. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (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.