Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie May (geneticist)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bernie May (geneticist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Over a dozen legit references. --В²C ☎ 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are things that he published. Scientists can have dozen of publications and still not be notable, even if the research itself is. Natureium (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We differ in opinion about. I think publishing notable research makes the scientist notable, period. --В²C ☎ 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment According to SCOPUS his most cited papers have 114, 108, and 99 citations respectively in the ~18 years since they were published. After that it kinda tails off. Whether that means he meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion #1 or not is unclear to me.Ajpolino (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete His body of scientific work is not large enough and heavily cited enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per criteria 1 and 2. For 2, he was inducted into the American Fisheries Society's Genetics Section Hall of Excellence in 2015 (after the article was created it seems). The less significant awards for specific academic papers mentioned in the article also contribute to satisfying the criterion. For 1, his induction bio describes his "important contributions" to fish genetics in detail, using the words pioneered, foundation, and one of the earliest to describe the first few points. Though not directly satisfying criteria (as they're affiliated with universities), he was the director of two research centers dealing with genetics (UC Davis bio) and also his expertise is supported by his authorship of a very specific chapter in a 2003 fisheries textbook. He's listed as the primary author of a chapter in a very specific 1990 text also.
 * He may also satisfy criterion 7, but it's difficult to find sources that discuss his contribution to fish genetics in the context of fisheries management. His bio on UC Davis' site says that the laboratory he directed "focuses primarily on providing genetics data and expertise to state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies in their efforts to protect and conserve threatened and endangered fish species." The induction bio states "Much of his research has had direct management implications and there is an extensive list of federal, state, and tribal stakeholders that have benefited from his expertise." The current references in the article and its content may not indicate notability, but that doesn't make him not notable. Rhinopias (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I basically agree with Rhinopias I think that this subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC guideline requirements. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.