This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
The notability guidelines for academics say one of the following conditions should be met. I'm not sure which is supposed to apply in this case:
The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
No evidence of this. This page only list a couple of books he's written, with no mention of the importance of his primary research. No mention of third party discussion of his books
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
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)
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
No evidence of this
The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
No, he seems to be a post-doc fellow.
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
See last post
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
His notability as an author isn't established
The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
No mention of this
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.
Again, his notability as an author isn't established in this page.
So in summary, why is a post-doctoral researcher who's written a couple of books notable. His role as an academic doesn't seem to be notable, and I don't see any justification for his notability as an author.
He's a member of the Royal Society, not to mention he came up with one of the few viable theories for the Cambrian Explosion, which has stumped palaeontologists for 150 years. According to his publishers, he has been named by the London Times as one of the three most important young scientists in the world for his work in investigating and answering the great riddle of the Cambrian explosion. Doubtless notability could be explained better, but it's certainly there. Peter Grey (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm adding the notability template again. The academic notability page says article subjects should be members of the Royal Society, which presumably means they should be FRS, as I'm not sure what else it could mean. Parker is a University Research Fellow, which isn't the same thing and is not notable in the WP sense. The Times quote is also irrelevant. While it may be an interesting thing to add to a notable individual's page, it doesn't make him notable. You say yourself that notability isn't explained well in the article, so unless that changes please don't remove the tag again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)