Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Crowther (ecologist)


 * 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. Improvements made during the course of the AfD push this over the WP:GNG bar. please read WP:COI to determine if it applies to you; if it does, please make the appropriate declarations. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Crowther (ecologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scant coverage of subject in reliable, independent sources does not satisfy general notability guideline, nor is it apparent the subject meets WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. News coverage seems to be limited to quotes or routine coverage of individual studies. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - With regards to general notability, Prof. Crowther has received significant coverage of both himself and his work in the public domain. Within the article, I have now added further citations to include; additional coverage from the Independent, CNN , NPR Connecticut , Time , NU.nl , Reuters , The Sydney Morning Herald  and KFOX . Further, I have also added references to direct interviews with Professor Crowther. These include; a feature length article on the BBC , a video from Stadt-Mensch.ch (a Swiss media outlet providing portraits on notable residents of Zürich) , and a podcast interview with Esri (a GIS mapping company) . I’m sure there are further articles covering him and his work, but with these updates I would consider the sheer volume and the global nature of the coverage as more than ‘scant’.


 * Comment - I would also consider the above coverage to be in excess of “routine”. The mainstream media do not typically cover ecological research or researchers, but Crowther is at the forefront of his field, and clearly driving the climate change debate in this area. Whilst there is a lot of public coverage of Crowther at the time of his research publications, he is also regarded as a “climate change expert” and has been requested to comment on major global events over a consistent period of time. This includes being quoted by newspapers on: the outcomes from COP21 (the BBC), the decision of Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement (the Independent), and the decision to lift the US coal moratorium (the Independent). The article has been updated to include his quotes on these global issues. As covered in the first draft of this article he was also included as a climate change expert in the creation of the ‘Clean Air Rule’. These quotations in mainstream national media directly satisfy the notability guidance for academics, as stated in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines for criterion 7.


 * Comment - In terms of reliability and independence, all information included in the article is published by established outlets (as listed above). I have updated the article to include citations of his peer reviewed research. In addition, I have included references to a citation index which show it is in the top 5% of research for impact (and the 99th percentile for researchers of his age) to demonstrate that this research is at the forefront of its field . I have also now updated the article to include citations from secondary sources. These include academic review articles (which summarise the most significant, up to date research in this area and reference his work e.g.  as well as textbooks which directly reference Prof. Crowther’s work . These both fulfil the requirements in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines for criterion 1.


 * Comment - As the science advisor to the UN's Billion Tree Campaign his research and the story of his academic life has also been included within a children’s textbook, which is distributed to all of Plant-for-the-Planet’s youth ambassadors (of which there are over 100,000 . This emphasises that his research fulfils WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines criterion 7 (having a substantial impact outside academia). Tomwill1 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - with the above updates, the article meets the general notability guideline and specifically addresses the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwill1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Further citations have been added to the article to show that criterion 1 (significant impact within the scholarly discipline) is met under WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. A additional textbook featuring Dr. Crowther's soil carbon work as well as a review of the latest research in this field, published in Nature . One of the key aspects to consider in meeting criterion 1 is citation rate. Crowther's major publications featured in the article clearly have an outstanding citation rate (as noted in the above comment. I have also considered Crowther's impact for his overall work. Whilst the limitation of using Google Scholar are referenced in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines, this can be used as a supporting source in this instance. The major publications in the field of ecology (with the highest impact factor) are Nature, Science, PNAS, Nature Climate Change, Nature Ecology & Evolution - citations from all of these journals (and many others in the field) are cited by Google Scholar.  Professor Crowther's research has been cited by his peers 737 times within the last 12 months . From a review of other leaders in the field Crowther stands out against those such as Tracey Rogers with 205 citations, Roberto Cazzolla Gatti with 211 citations  and Jacqueline McGlade with 228 citations. He is driving the field in this area with three times more citations than other notable academics. Tomwill1 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - further information has been included on Crowther's unique philanthropic funding . The long term nature of this thirteen year funding for over €17m is notable in its own right. This level of funding in the field of ecology is extremely unique, and far exceeds the public funding typically available to researchers through their individual governments or collective organisations such as the European Research Council. This also shows that Crowther will remain a notable contributor, at the forefront of his scholarly discipline, for the foreseeable future. Tomwill1 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage mentioned above is significant and not routine. Meets GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I am still on the fence a bit. There are many references, good ones. But notability is what others write about the subject, not what the subject writes about. The mainstream media references are all about his 2015 study, which is a little WP:SINGLEEVENT. The study itself is definitely notable, and while notoriety is not inherited, I think he meets criteria for being the lead author. Ifnord (talk) 13:45, 3 November 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.