Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Leaman
I don't really see this as passing either  or . First, Dolphin51 is quite correct: Meika's argument that notability of Tasmania somehow translates into notability of David Leaman is certainly not valid. There is a well-established principle in applying all notability guidelines which says that "notability is not inherited". E.g. being a relative or a friend of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Even more so, having written something about a notable subject (Tasmania in this case) does not make one notable. Similarly, the NPOV argument of Meika is invalid as well.  talks about how a topic is to be presented within a particular article,  and is not applicable as a rationale for keeping an article. The key issue to be considered is notability of the subject, that is of David Leaman. First, let us consider the case for notability under . Leaman appears to be an active conservation activist in Tasmania and he may be considered for notability under  on that basis. There are some sources (23 GoogleNews hits) given in Cari's searchhttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22David+Leaman%22+tasmania&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1 sources. However, a closer look at them shows that there is very little coverage in these sources of David Leaman ''himself'', as a person (his life, his accomplishments, his career, etc). Mostly the sources quote his opinion on various conservation matters and sometimes his name is mentioned as having spoken at some political event (e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/10/05/960079.htm). No significant political or elected offices either. Not enough here to pass , in my opinion. Next, let us consider possible academic notability under . The basic case here is pretty weak. First, let me note, in response to Cari's comment ("appears to have been published") that having published something (or even a lot) was never enough to pass . It is generally necessary to show that one's work made substantial impact in one's academic field. In this case we seem to have a self-published book (Leaman, David, 2002, “The Rock that Makes Tasmania”) and no evidence of citability (high or otherwise) of his research in academic publications and no academic reviews of his work  either. As did DGG, I also checked the WebOfScience and Scopus and found nothing at all there. There are no academic awards either. There is one provision of  that might possibly be applicable here: "An academic repeatedly quoted, as an academic expert, in newspapers or newsmagazines". (I must admit that this is my least favorite part of ; it is rarely invoked and does not mesh well with the rest of the guideline). To some extent this criterion is indeed applicable here. However, the number of quotations is not sufficiently high (in my opinion). Moreover, in most instances he speaks primarily as a political conservation activist and I feel that political activism of any kind should be evaluated primarily under . All in all, I do not quite see this case as passing either  or 
— User:Nsk92, 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:NPOV||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)