Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Highton

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 keep. Orlady (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Highton[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements for a professor, sources simply seem to be a few times where he made a statement on salamanders for a news article. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS gives h index of 23. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have read C1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I failed to find any statement to indicate this in the article. Could you help me out there?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notes on C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have, and I'm still not exactly sure which you're referring to and how it applies. But regardless, the page itself needs to make a statement to attest to this notability; its not enough to have simple biographical info in the page without talking about what potentially makes the subject notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Yaksar already knows all he requires for his chosen purpose. Ignoring arguments, denying everything, and Argumentum ad nauseum is all that is required of a successful deletor. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taxonomy in general seems to be a low-citation field compared to other styles of biological research, but he seems to be the world's foremost expert in woodland salamander taxonomy (i.e. if you search Google scholar for plethodon taxonomy, four of his papers come up in the top ten). Although specialized, I think that this together with the modest general-notability sources present in the article should be enough for a keep. To Yaksar: I added a book source that I think may answer your question to Xxanthippe. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations fulfill WP:Prof#Criteria #1. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been recognised by his peers as influential in his field by having a species named after him. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2011 (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.