Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinobu Akiyama


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Shinobu Akiyama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I hesitate to nominate these scientist stubs, because I like having them in the encyclopedia (certainly more than many other things); but I don't think this researcher meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. She is a productive botanist with some species descriptions to her name, but unfortunately that's not equal to prestigious honours, substantial impact on the field, or widespread personal coverage, which is what we require. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. What do you think of my article Albert Callay, on an 1800s amateur botanist whose described species have all been synonymized? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the references given, I'd say borderline; although ref #2 appears to be the kind of source that, when present in multiples, does suffice for establishing coverage requirements. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, Shinobu Akiyama has to wait for her obituary to become notable? Because Albert Callay was no more notable after his obituary than he was before. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first, in the worst case; no to the second. If the obituary is the occasion on which someone deems the person a fit subject for in-depth treatment, then that's what it would take to document notability. In effect, the person only becomes notable by our criteria once someone writes about them in this manner - whatever level of hero/genius/saint they are in reality. Remember that part about us merely summarizing what the rest of the world has decided is worthy of coverage (i.e., our definition of "notability")? - Note that I'm not demanding that Shinobu Akiyama will have to die before there can be an article, just that based on what is present in sourcing and what I can find, there is insufficient coverage to meet the notability threshold at the moment. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I generally agree with deletionists, but in this case, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. This article, stub though it is, would help add context to anyone googling the synonymous species. And it doesn't really do much harm to exist, does it? I know Jimmy Wales is concerned about server space...but by virtue of it being a stub, it takes up so little!-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. May not meet WP:NACADEMIC, but there are many articles on taxonomists that may not meet those criteria. Taxonomists are usually linked from the species they describe, deleting taxonomist articles will result in red links. Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and that may be a useful criterion. It would be highly useful to codify it somewhere though; if there's no established consensus behind it, I don't see how it could (or should) trump notability guidelines, as a general practice. And it will keep coming up at page review (there's quite an influx of these currently). Let's get a discussion going once this is done? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Without commenting on the merits of this specific individual, I think a reasonable alternative would be to create a series of "List of" articles collecting taxonomists by class (or at some other level, if that is too broad), to which individually non-notable taxonomists could be redirected. bd2412  T 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have any preference on merge, redirect, or creating a list somewhere, but I'm just not finding significant secondary coverage of this person, which is what ultimately matters. Describing nine new species isn't exactly high either, but I don't like editors using publication/"works" counts arbitrarily to assess notability either. If we're concerned about redlinks in other articles, helping with searches, etc., I feel like that's getting into WP:ISNOT territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep She's one of the authors of 170 taxon names according to this search of IPNI. She's clearly a highly productive and active taxonomist in her field. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (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.