Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair Robinson

Alastair Robinson

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

Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 8 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 5 as per citations-gadget. Although the article mentions a discovery made by Robinson et. al., the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. The subject is the brother of actress Zuleikha Robinson, but since notability is not inherited this isn't a good reason to keep the article. Finally, the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major authority on carnivorous plants, of which he has formally described at least 7 species (see List of carnivorous plants, where he is listed under the botanical abbreviation "A.S.Rob."). The discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii that you mention was covered by countless news media worldwide, including the BBC (see [1] for others). mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question He seems like a serious scientist, however is there a reliable secondary source which covers his work? The Google link you provide above links to Stewart McPherson who is not the subject of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Salimfadhley, despite being a rather specialised niche in taxonomic research, the 2007 paper in cited as an excellent source of paleogeographic evidence by a number of other peer reviewed papers in good journals and academic books. Although the OP would contend that the number of citations is low (this number does not include book references), this is a function of subject specialism. Moreover, the 2009 McPherson monograph on Nepenthes, which is described as "to date the only publication dealing with the genus Nepenthes throughout its geographical range ... outstanding and [without] precedent" (see [2] - reference kindly provided by mgiganteus1), acknowledges Robinson as the authority responsible for preparing all of the species entries and for editing the work in its entirety. Outside of academic literature and print articles, online agencies also highlight his role in the discovery of Nepenthes attenboroughii, among others (see [3]). Jeljen (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major authority for carnivorous plants. To address the points of the OP, it is common knowledge that the h-index index is skewed towards particular areas of science; the WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC page even takes the time to explain that such indices "should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted". The same page states that it is very difficult to make clear requirements of numbers of publications or their quality, the criteria varying enormously by field. This is especially true of taxonomy, and in this instance, the scientist in question has published additional peer reviewed papers to the 8 cited by the OP, but in academic books, whose cross-citations are not indexed like journals. Moreover,WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC, which "is a guideline and not a rule", states that academic books are acceptable and that "Criterion 1 can be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - a read of [4] puts forward palaeogeographic proof for an important theorized historical migration route of Nepenthes in a paper that is favourably reviewed by members of the Linnean Society in their annual highlights for the same year. It is not our place to decide who that information is important to, but the theory and proof certainly seem to be important information in this topic of research. 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) - I felt that the research of Alastair Robinson and Stewart McPherson (geographer) (also singled out by the OP) merited inclusion in Wikipedia - particular as both parties are each named a dozen times on various articles within Wikipedia. I am not wedded to their inclusion and do not benefit from it, but I do believe that it is better that someone running a search for either party (the logs show that people do search for these names) or following through from other Wikipages actually arrives at a useful page with useful information on it rather than nothing at all. It is in the spirit of access to information for all that current, even niche, areas of research - and their instigators - be accessible where there is a context for it. Westeros91 singles out only these two, interrelated individuals for deletion, but has overlooked over 50 other botanists on Wikipedia with extremely vague entries and no internal cross-linking within Wikipedia; would the two nominated articles be more acceptable if references were stripped and information cut out? Clearly not. My point is, if any articles within the botany/bio sections are in need of revision, which is a valid topic, they merit consensus, discussion and improvement, rather than outright deletion, and these two articles are far better referenced and cited than those of many of their current and erstwhile counterparts. Removal of these two articles leaves dozens of references on Wikipages to both authorities pointing at nothing. Thank you for your input. Jeljen (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]