Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry E. Luther

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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry E. Luther

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

He is NOT recognized internationally. He just sounds like your average scientist who discovered a few hundred species. Plus, it has only 3 sources. Also if they were popular then why doesn't everyone know them? This just sounds not notable.

Cranloa12n (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. MB 21:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this article dosen't pass WP:GNG. Even if more information is added, it dosen't complies with WP:ARTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the claimed notability is by way of academic publications, surely the applicable notability guideline here is WP:NACADEMIC. In order to see if he passes that, some sort of assessment of how widely cited his allegedly many publications are. But as he gets independent coverage in multiple obits -- the Herald Tribune, and the Journal of the Bromeliad Society -- I'm puzzled by the logic that he's an average scientist and doesn't have the international recognition explicitly stated, and apparently backed up by those. I can't access the HT article, but the second states "In a world full of experts, there are very few authorities but Harry was one. One of the most prolific taxonomists of the past 30 years and more than that [...]". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a question. If this guy is "popular" and "famous" and "world renound", how come this article is so short? Is he the most famous biologist? Is he talked about in schools across the world? If you say no to the last 2, then that automatically confirms that this guy is not notable. If he was there would be world discussion, awards given out, Nobel prizes won, but no. THATS MY POINT. It doesn't take like 10 sources to confirm he's internationally recognized. Is Harry Luther a household name? No. Not internationally recognized. Simple as that. Cranloa12n (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was forgetting we could only even have one biologist article, thus only "the most famous" could be kept, and we have to delete all the others. "Household name" is a wildly incorrect bar to apply. Is this even attempting to apply the guidelines as written? Or am I missing some WP:POINT being made here? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i literally never even heard of this guy until i did random article. I don't think that's called "popular" Cranloa12n (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"i literally never even heard of this guy" is not a valid deletion rationale. I really hope that you're just kidding? Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that he has never won ANY awards or anything like that. He is not famous or viral. Therefore you cannot apply the term "famous" to it. Also this article in general sounds like a praise to this guy. Also like i said, if he is popular then why doesn't everyone know them. Cranloa12n (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to actually have some level of understanding of our inclusion and deletion policies before nominating pages for deletion. Nothing you have said is remotely related to whether this article should be kept or deleted. "I haven't heard of them" is not a policy based reason to delete an article. "They don't teach kids about him in schools" is not a reason to delete this article. "He didn't go viral" is not a reason to delete this article. "He isn't world famous" isn't a reason to delete this article. "He didn't win a Nobel prize" isn't a reason to delete this article. To be honest a lot of your comments here read as little more than trolling. What matters is whether this person satisfies any of wikipedias WP:Notability Guidelines. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and added sources. Meets GNG. MB 03:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and commend MB for their prompt and excellent work on this. Clearly passes GNG, and certainly appears to pass WP:PROF too: "An alphabetical list of bromeliad binomials" -- Cited by 506. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to say "per WP:HEY", but I think notability had already been demonstrated before MB's fine work. St Anselm (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MB. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was impressed with the number of publications of the subject, the multiple obituaries in academic journals, and the amount of coverage in reliable sources found in a couple Google searches and I appreciate the work that MB did to improve the article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2022 (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.