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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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 is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write
neutral and
well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly
categorized. Read
Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the
project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Okay then. I wasn't entirely sure whether he met any notability guidelines, so thanks for your assurance that he does. This is my first RFC, by the way, so I'm sorry if I am doing it wrong or something.
Jinkinson (
talk)
04:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I didn't say he did pass
WP:GNG, I said he seems to, which means only that at a quick glance there seems to be enough
WP:RS to support an article. Whether or not he actually does would be at the discretion of the community if it was ever brought to
WP:AfD. All I can say is that it would be declined for
CSD:A7 or
WP:BLPPROD if nominated.
Technical 13 (
talk)
12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Citations for his work are 564, 297, 163, 155, 150, 123 ... Anyone who has published papers with that many citations is obviously influential in his subject and thus meets the basic principle of WP:PROF. I cannot imagine why it's been challenged--or, more precisely, i can't imagine it would have been challenged if he worked in any other field than climate change. . Since Project scientist for Jason 3 was present even in the version on Sept 7, nominating this for CSD seems to be without consideration of "indications of importance or significance" It was cited well enough to pass BLP Prod even then also. DGG (
talk )
02:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Move to AfD: I think this discussion is better suited to
WP:AFD, since discussion there will be asking the same questions, and if it looks like the subject isn't sufficiently notable, we'll need to have this discussion over there anyway. As it is, looking at the sources in the article now, I don't think Willis meets
WP:GNG. He may meet
WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria pt.2, if the American Geophysical Union Early Career Award counts as "highly prestigious"; I'd guess it doesn't but I'd be happy to be overruled by people who know that area of academia. If this were an AfD, I'd be !voting weak delete. —
me_
and15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Let's not: Subject clearly over the bar for
WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria pt.1. He has a ton of publications in good journals, and he's project scientist for an important satellite -- the latter post would make him notable in itself. Concur with
DGG that this smells like a political campaign against climate science.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Having "a ton of publications" doesn't count; pt.1 states his impact must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", ie
independent reliable sources must say they've had significant impact.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my objections are based on policy, not politics. I'd never heard of Willis or his research until I was invited here by
WP:FRS. @
MarkBernstein: can you be more clear about what you think smells like a political campaign? I'm trying not to read that statement as an accusation of bad faith on the part of myself and
Timtrent, but I can't see any other way of reading it.
Actually I object to being accused of running a political campaign. I don't even know who this chap is! I also don't much care. WHat I care about is whether an article on the bloke is suitable for retention, no more and no less.
FiddleFaddle16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
The subject is appears to be a leading scholar in his field, with a long list of peer-reviewed publications in top journals. He played a central role in a notable scientific debate. His position in JASON-3 might itself qualify in criteria 1,2, or 3.
MarkBernstein (
talk)
23:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
@me_and : The independent sources are the people who cite his papers. Just as we can judge if a publication provides substantial coverage when applying GNG, we can judge if the citations in a given case are enough to prove impact when using PROF. That's the invariable course at AfDs. The only people with such high publication levels who have even been challenged there in the last 5 years (except by people who did not know about the WP:PROF standard) are ones who work in controversial subject fields, or in fields that WPedians have a prejudice against, such as education. DGG (
talk )
04:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Will any of these news sources help? He seems to be quoted in many publications as an expert"
I lie: the article uses dmy in the citations, and mdy in the one place with a full date in the article proper. The question still stands, however. —
me_
and16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Josh Willis. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.