Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo N. Tandang

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Danilo N. Tandang}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Danilo N. Tandang}})

A botanist with a number of species descriptions; that's not enough to meet WP:NPROF, and there appear to be no other criteria that can be considered met here. (Editor is also still busy trying to get themselves added, after having been deleted before). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The citability in GScholar is too low even for a relatively quiet field like taxonomy: h-index of about 5, with the top cited publiication of 19. Not enough here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Does not help that the article's creator has an apparent WP:COI in this case as a coworker and co-author of the article's subject. Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly inclusionist about authors of scientific names, because, particularly for plants where the standard abbreviation can be obscure, it's useful for readers to be able to click on the author to find out a bit more. IPNI lists only 14 names with author "Tandang", but they are in genera which attract interest, including Begonia, Nepenthes and Rafflesia. So I think it's more of a marginal case than previous posters appear to. (More problematic is the article Philippine Taxonomic Initiative, which has a similar COI issue.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment So far, the author has included just the "bare bones," or basic facts: references, publications, and short one-line sentences. He can officially declare his COI and post on the talk page for other users to vet biographical content that could potentially be seen as promotional. But this is one of the world's very few specialists on these kinds of plant species, so I would very strongly advise against discouraging the author from contributing, per WP:EXR (expert retention). He is clearly here to help improve the project. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Tandang's citation scores may not be very high, but that is because papers on obscure species simply aren't cited as much. He contributed to the descriptions of quite a few species and also has a species named after him. Personally I would prefer to see more taxonomists on Wikipedia. As for the wiki syntax, it's quite messy and I've had to constantly clean up after the article creator, but that can be fixed. Neutrally written with just the basic facts and not promotional. I'd also agree with the comment above. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Taxonomy isn't as obscure a field as that; it's still a branch of biology and I'd expect to see higher citation rates than what we are seeing here (19, 13, 6, 5, 2, 1 according to GoogleScholar). That's not exactly what WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes has in for WP:PROF#C1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Moreover, on closer inspection, even these modest citation numbers are slightly inflated. For example, for the top cited paper, out of [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9446355440442805353&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en 19 cites], 4 are to papers by PJ Matthews, a co-author of the paper being cited, so they are not independent sources for that paper. Similarly, for the third most cited paper, out of [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11642186968675886682&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en 6 cites], 3 are to papers by R.R. Rubite and another one to a paper by K.F. Chung, both of whom are co-authors on the paper being cited, so again non-independent. Nsk92 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Sagotreespirit. The ad hominem about the author, in the nomination, is regrettable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per Sagotreespirit. Though it needs some clean-up, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per PROF. He's a lead botanist in the equivalent of a national academy. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.