Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Wayne (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. Discussion indicates substantial improvement since nomination; even nominator now asserts keep outcome. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Randy Wayne (biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:PROF. The first point was suggested since he has a well cited review article and a quote on the Times, but independent RS that would establish that he has made a significant impact are scarce. One user has done a great job locating several sources, but I don't think they collectively establish notability. Previously PRODed and the subject of a open WP:COI/N posting. a13ean (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability beyond local papers, a book review, and an NYTimes piece that doesn't support this article's assertion that Wayne was leading the study. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable expert on plant growth. Breakthrough 1985 article Calcium and plant development earned over 800 citations and findings were discussed in NY Times, Washington Post, & Discover Magazine. His work is discussed prominently in textbooks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Tomwsulcer's improvements. Tom has drawn attention to the work of Wayne that has been highly cited, and allocated little space to the fringe stuff that has not won recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per some very well-cited papers. -- 202.124.74.122 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good job Tomwsulcer on the reliable sources provided. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as nominator per the recent changes. a13ean (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article now has lots of impressive sources and references from quite a diverse range of highly-respected sources. The 'deletes' seem to have been written before the new references were added.  In its new form, it meets WP:PROF as well as Wikipedia's general notability guidelines fairly easily, and deserves to stay.Squareanimal (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (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.