Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kammen

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 SNOW Keep. Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kammen[edit]

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

The article relies heavily on primary sources and the subject of the article is only marginally notable. This article appears to be a vanity article and puffery piece. Has some recent press mention and some published works, but overall does not appear to be a mainstream researcher based on the listed sources in the article. Wikipedia certainly cannot list every single college professor who has written papers unless they have somehow distinguished themselves in a particular field. I have reviewed many of his papers and I don't find them particularly notable. His political career may be notable, but I would like to see the views of other editors regarding this. Any college professor can dump white papers by publishing in journals but they have to be distinguished and notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Octoberwoodland. Daniel Kammen is clearly a dinstinguished professor and currently the center of a major news story for resigning from his state department post in reaction to President Trump's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask4me10 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I mightily disagree with the political views of Kammen and his interpretation of President Trump's comments, I don't see any reason why his career shouldn't warrant a Wikipedia page. Being selected as a U.S. Science Envoy by the State Department, in addition to his position at Berkeley, is certainly notable and much more than the average college professor. I wouldn't say the current news story is that significant, but altogether Kammen's resume shouldn't justify deletion. Octoberwoodland describes many of Kammen's papers not "particularly notable" -- I'll credit him for speaking his opinion, but certainly the State Department and UC-Berkeley didn't think his papers were "trashy" (although I hate the majority of university professors for my own way).- A Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.254.206 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ACADEMIC. Google scholar search shows that his scholarship is widely cited in his field satisfying criteria 1. His position as science envoy satisfies criteria 2. His position as a fellow at the African Academy of Sciences satisfies criteria 3. He is a distinguished professor at UC-Berkeley which satisfies criteria 5. These are more objective criteria than "does not appear to be a mainstream researcher" and "I have reviewed many of his papers and I don't find them particularly notable". Further the rationale of "Any college professor can dump volumes of trashy white papers with their brain farts by publishing in journals" shows a contempt to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep — Another time-wasting deletion attempt because somebody's name was in the news. Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 for membership in selective groups (four times over: 1 Energy and Resources Group, 2. Goldman School of Public Policy, 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and 4. U.S. Science Envoy). Also meets WP:NACADEMIC #5: holds or has held a named chair/distinguished professor chair, for being the 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at UC Berkeley. And then there's the small thing of being one of the lead authors of the IPCC report that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize, meeting NACADEMIC #2, or just GNG. Also meets WP:AUTHOR for having written a significant body of work consisting of hundreds of journal articles, and 12 books, at least several of which have "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Significant news and book coverage of Daniel Kammen spans back at least as far back as 2001, meeting WP:GNG. So at a cursory glance, the subject has met at SEVEN separate criteria for notability, any one of which is sufficient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make some good arguments, however, all of these references and sources you rely on are not currently in the article or properly sourced, which leaves us with a poorly written and poorly sourced article. How about adding some of them to the article so his accomplishments are properly represented. As it stands, the current article fails to mention all this wonderful content you seem to have located online. I am having a hard time determining which of it would be useful or relevant. How about you add some of it to this article so it does not get deleted. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bratland. @Octoberwoodland: I don't think Wikipedia works that way. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this page warrants deletion. Useful contributions should not be press-ganged into additional work beyond the original spirit of contribution. Any person here can make these edits. If they don't get made, it's because each of us decided—for our own reasons—that we had better outlets for our energy on the margin.

To make a point, I just googled "IPCC Daniel Kammen", second link: "Daniel Kammen is a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007." This from erg.berkeley.edu

Furthermore: "Kammen is the author of over 300 journal publications, 6 books, 30 technical reports, and has testified in front of state and US House and Senate over 30 times." This is not difficult stuff, the subject is hardly hiding under an obscure rock. — MaxEnt 02:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — U.S. Science Envoys usually serve for one year. He was appointed in March 2016 (over 1 year ago). Clearly, his departure at this point is no big deal. It is not clear in this article what his accomplishments are or how significant his role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is. There are an incredibly large number of members on that panel. This article seems to imply that he had an integral role in the panel being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but what is there to substantiate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.213.65 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have suitable coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2017 (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.