Talk:Richard W. Wells

Notability
, you retagged this article for notability concerns and I think you were right to do so as it stood. However, I think Wells does not fail WP:BLP1E by virtue of his second, later controversy in which his further non-peer-reviewed publications and the names he proposed in the Australian Biodiversity Record are the subject to an ongoing boycott by a number of prominent herpetologists, now in its eighth year. For comparison, during the Wells and Wellington affair, a boycott was never undertaken. I've added a source to expand on this and, I hope, demonstrate Wells's notability beyond the affair. I don't know that I would be able to justify notability for Wellington at this point (he's seemingly done more less controversial herpetology than Wells has at this point, but none so flashy or controversial as Wells's 2000s publications) but I feel confident that Wells merits an article. Thanks, —Collint c 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. The new Kaiser (2013) reference does indeed have non-trivial discussion of Wells' work in the 2000s. I can't access the Cogger (2017) ref but I'll assume good faith that it has similar commentary on Wells (not just Hoser). This still seems a bit borderline for notability, but I'll remove the tag. Thanks for addressing! Modest Genius talk 11:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)