Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)


 * 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. Despite a few delete !votes, there is a clear consensus here that the subject passes WP:PROF. If anybody feels that WP:PROF needs to be changed, then the proper venue for that discussion is Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Copyright issues were also raised but those can be dealt with through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

not notable Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

While this researcher has published academic papers, that's not enough reason for a Wikipedia entry Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep since my prod was declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? That he is somehow notable? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:DGG on removing the prod claimed that it met WP:PROF. Not by number of articles, but on how many others refered these articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm pretty sure the top hits in this search are by him and there are four papers with over 100 citations each. That seems like enough for WP:PROF #1 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I noted on the article's talk page that the text in the article closely matches his personal page.  If the article is to be kept, it needs some cleanup to alleviate any concerns about copyright violation. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 07:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Associate editor of Nature is 99% close to enough, and everything else pushes it over the edge. I don't see any concerns about accuracy, so I'm quite comfortable with a keep here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He was associate editor more than ten years ago, and for less than a year.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. --Þadius (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with Shadowjams. Actually according to this Harvey has jointly published at least nine papers, all with over 200 citations and one with over 1600. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure many of those are other people with similar names. That's why I provided a more tightly constrained search, above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oompf... my silly error, you are correct. Still, I support a (somewhat weakened) keep. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. To complement what David furnished above, a more targeted search (WoS: Author=(Harvey J*) Refined by: Institutions=(NETHERLANDS INST ECOL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI), which probably contains no false positives, but may actually omit papers, if any, that he authored at other institutions, shows 51 papers with an accompanying list of high cites: 139, 130, 67... for an h-index of 16, which I think is an unqualified pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete How can it be a biography without any biographical information. Unless some source takes an interest in him, rather than one of his papers, he won't be a notable enough individual to have a biography here. Weakopedia (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:PROF – it says differently. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep - sufficiently notable, but the article doesn't do a great job of telling me so at present. Thparkth (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   What makes someone notable in any field is not the facts of their birth and education, but their achievements,  and we judge accordingly--writers, athletes, politicians, performers, even professors. The work is acknowledged in various ways, only one of which is writing a formal article about their life. This is particularly rarely the case for academics, where their work is usually by far the more interesting. In the academic world, the worth of their work is the impact on other scholars--which can be shown in many ways, but usually by citations. It would be very much easier here if other fields had so convenient a statistic. Not that a researcher cannot be notable with fairly low formal references if their are other ways of showing it,  but that someone with a high numbers  , judged by the standard of the field, is necessarily notable.  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well-said indeed. The academics' AfD list seems to be particular rife at the moment with folks who do not understand this reasoning. Hope they have a look at it! Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
 * The article says nothing about the impact of the person's work, there's no analysis of the work's notability, no one has linked to the article, there's nothing on the discussion page, Google News shows nothing about him. Notable? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're complaining mostly about the article, but we're debating the notability of the subject. Moreover, good Gnews coverage would be sufficient, but is not necessary to demonstrate notability. It's critical not to get these things confused. Please have a look at what  DGG wrote above. It is absolutely spot-on with respect to this issue. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Would we say that about carpenters? "No one'e ever heard of the guy but other carpenters like his work?" There's definitel a bias towards academics here. I think notability to the public, and not to a small group, should be the criteria. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're wanting to argue policy – not the place for it. I've been around academics AfD awhile and my sense is that this one will pass. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm sure it will. And no one will read the page or link to it. But the policies will all be followed, and that's all that matters to Wikicrats.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable, but this article must be improved and expanded. MiRroar (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2010 (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.