Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanja M.Schuster

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. Canley (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja M.Schuster[edit]

[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)

Don't think this justifies WP:NSCIENTIST. Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears she's the creator of the genus Duma (plant) 9H48F (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, when this is kept (oh really coola?:)), article name will at least need to be amended from "Tanja M.Schuster" to "Tanja M. Schuster" or maybe remove middle letter altogether ie. "Tanja Schuster"? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Duma (plant). Otherwise this article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's like 3 things are going on at once. Trillfendi (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Duma (plant) -- agree with Trillfendi's suggestion. I can't find any usable references via Pro Quest a search that would make the subject notable in their own right, but a mention on the Duma (plant) page would be appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong retain She is the author or co-author of 63 plant names listed in the International Plant Names Index (link added to the article) and is the co-author of several highly significant papers on the phylogeny and classification of the Polygonaceae. Because of her authorship of plant names, there will be many articles requiring a link from her botanical abbreviation "T.M.Schust." She is clearly a notable botanist. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without much effort, I've increased the number of wikilinks to her page to about 20. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the link generating templates were using the nonsense string "Tanja M.Schuster" rather than "Tanja Schuster" or "Tanja M. Schuster", searches such as Google Scholar weren't working properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article expanded, I'll give it a little more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:
Stuck between Keep and Merge - I'm struggling to get at most of these papers, and I don't have the full SCOPUS access needed for a full h-index check. However google usually overestimates h-indexes for those articles it has (but may be missing some), and it gives a low h-index (7/8) for the author. WP:NACADEMIC also specifically clarifies "Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.". Countering that, does having lots of objects help? In a more guideline-supported query, NACADEMIC also states does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? - I can well imagine that these niche botanists all have low h-indexes, and so a low one by absolute standards might indicate a good standing comparatively. Finally, NPROF does note that it's particularly likely to have articles that aren't covered by its specific criteria, so that must be considered. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: one issue to be considered is that we want to wikilink the first occurrence of the otherwise mysterious author abbreviations that appear after botanical names. So it's of some importance to have somewhere to direct "T.M.Schust." If she had named only a dozen or so taxa, then I'd agree to deletion, but with 63 already, and obviously still active, without an article there will be a lot of red links. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Peter coxhead that deleting this page would leave an unseemly hole in Wikipedia, I’m not convinced by the argument to merge with Duma. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is clearly a notable subject. Better sourcing would help. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That she is botanical author (or jointly so) for so many taxa makes her highly notable. As she is or will be listed as botanical authority in Wikipedia articles for these taxa, no link leaves a dead end for the reader and a redirect to Duma would WP:ASTONISH. Declangi (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument of @Peter coxhead above and the point @Declangi made that a redirect would be suboptimal. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter, and fix the name per Coola. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:15, 04 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NACADEMIC as the author of a number of well-cited (220), peer-reviewed articles and redirecting would be inappropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.