Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart McPherson (geographer)

Stewart McPherson (geographer)

Stewart McPherson (geographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 5 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 4 as per citations-gadget. The article mentions a discovery made with Alastair Robinson, but the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. Finally the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to Alastair Robinson and the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Very clear notability both as WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Writter of standard works in his subject. Additionally, people who describe multiple species are usually considered notable . Low citations are typical of taxonomy--there are only a few sp-ecialists at a time in anything. Even if he wrotye it himself,he's notable . COI isn ot a reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Major authority on carnivorous plants, of which he has formally described at least 13 species (see List of carnivorous plants). Has made important contributions to the taxonomy of the group: with Donald Schnell he carried out a comprehensive revision of the genus Sarracenia, and in 2009 he published a monograph on Nepenthes, "to date the only publication dealing with the genus Nepenthes throughout its geographical range ... outstanding and [without] precedent" (see [1]). The discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii that you mention was covered by countless news media worldwide, including the BBC (see [2] for others). McPherson has been interviewed on numerous radio channels (see [3]). See also the number of incoming links to his article for an idea of his contributions to the field. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And from a recent paper I was just reading: "For the reconstruction of relative peristome width, the literature data from McPherson (2009) were used because only this data set comprised all species included in the phylogeny." mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I can only reiterate DGG's stance, and McPherson is regarded as significant in his field. Regarding assertions of COI, many editors carry out good faith edits on pet-projects because we have the time and/or access to specific information (I work in a botanical library that receives notices of all new species published, in addition to copyright titles) - it was when I was asked by members of the Linnean Society for information on Stewart McPherson (geographer) and Alastair Robinson that I realised that these individuals are making waves in modern botanical exploration and probably merited inclusion on Wikipedia. I am not wedded to their inclusion, and do not benefit from it. But I ask you, is it better that someone run a search for either party (look at the logs - people do search for these names) and come up with nothing, or to actually arrive at a useful page with useful information on it? Westeros91 singles out only these two, interrelated individuals (COI?), but has overlooked over 50 other botanists on Wikipedia with extremely vague entries - would these articles would be more acceptable if references were stripped and information cut out? Clearly not. My point is, if this section is in need of revision, which is a valid topic, it merits consensus and discussion, and these are not the two articles I would start of with. Thank you for your input. Jeljen (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)