This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Per the notability criteria for academics, I don't think this BLP meets the standard.
"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.
1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. No evidence of this.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. No
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). Apparently not
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. No
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). No
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. No
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. No evidence for this.
Yes, copious evidence for this, Including Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American,National Geographic, USA Today, The Guardian, and Fox News. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"shopped" Do you have reliable sources that the subject of this article was paid for having his work featured by Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American, National Geographic, USA Today, The Guardian, and Fox News? Hugh (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"one study" The subject of this article's work on funding was featured in Frontline (U.S. TV series), Scientific American, The Guardian, and Fox News while his work on opinion influences was featured by National Geographic and USA Today. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. No
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. No
This is not supposed to be a secondary CV for the subject. Reiterating SPS here is not appropriate. We should be endeavoring to add RS refs not mining SPS for puffery. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This current version is not how academic's articles are assembled. In particular, membership in academic groups shows up in almost no sociologists' articles. In the rare instance that it does, it occurs as a brief list before the reflist not as a paragraph discussing the orgs/professional clubs. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Memberships in professional organizations and service to professional organizations are important to notability. The sourcing is perfectly reasonable under RS and SPS. Hugh (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Memberships in clubs and associations are not indicative of notability. The criteria for academic notability is listed above. Being a member is specifically not a criteria. This is not how other academics articles are put togther. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The non-standard usage and description of the subject's media intersection is odd. In no other BLP do we have the mere existence of media usages become an entire section. Ordinarily media is used as ref to bolster facts in an article. Here the refs are turned on their head and are used to bolster the perceived importance of the subject. This article should be restored to standard academic BLP style. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
