From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Obituaries unearthed (ka-ching), looks like we are getting to GNG. Thanks everyone! ( non-admin closure) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Fred R Wanless

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Fred R Wanless (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ugh. My least favourite type of deletion candidate: a productive scientist in a specialized field who, by virtue of not working on anything flashy, has low citation numbers and no chance at a GNG pass. Personally I think that having a number of species named after him (as opposed to by him) should count for something when it comes to gauging importance in the relevant field, but unfortunately we currently don't make any provisions for that. Present sourcing is shite, which could be amended, but I'm afraid that by the book we are looking at a WP:NPROF fail. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trying my best to save this one. I've added more refs and I'm sure there are much more on him which might not be available online as he was mostly active in the pre-internet era. He fails WP:NPROF but can be saved per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO (cr.2) and WP:NACADEMIC (cr. 1). Less Unless ( talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Appreciate it. If you can get a working link to the obituary in Arachnology that might be worth a lot. Unfortunately that journal is not among my university's subscriptions. (BTW, WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC are the same - just different shortcuts.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Elmidae I have filed a request in RR, hope someone might help. Less Unless ( talk) 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC) PS: I have the article, it has a lot of facts. I will add them soon! Less Unless ( talk) 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't have a specific opinion on notability at the moment but the publications section (Studies and research on Salticidae) is definitely too long and needs to be shortened, dramatically. Usually, for articles about academics we include a few selected publications, maybe 5-6 most imortant ones. Including a large portion of the CV as is done here makes the article look overly promotional. Also, if the article is kept, the title will need to be moved to remove the middle initial. The current title does not conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Nsk92 ( talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Nsk92 I agree on everything you mentioned. Will work on it! Less Unless ( talk) 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I have access to the 2018 obituary in Arachnology through one the university libraries with which I am affiliated (the journal is behind a paywall and I doubt that a public access version of the article exists). I have downloaded and read the obituary, and I must admit that even after that I am pretty much on the fence in terms of notability. The obituary describes a modest and dedicated scientist who was primarily interested in doing research and whose accomplishments seem to have been somewhat under-appreciated, and perhaps still are. The author, another retired British arachnologist who was also mostly active in the 1970s-80s, does describe the impact of Wanless' work in some detail. But I still don't know what to make of it. Let me just quote a key paragraph. "As an alpha taxonomist, Fred Wanless was impressively productive. In the 15 years (1973–1988), during which he had an opportunity to study Salticidae, he described 137 new species and 13 new genera. Among them, only nine species (7%) have been later synonymized, and all his genera and the subfamily Spartaeinae remain valid. Besides new descriptions, Wanless published worldwide or regional revisions of 25 salticid genera of hitherto obscure statusand composition. Some of these revisions allowed other students to conduct their own research in related fields. For instance, a taxonomic revision of Portia (Wanless 1978f) allowed experimental studies on the biology and behaviourof Portia fimbriata and other species of that genus by Robert Jackson and co-authors (Jackson & Blest 1982; Jackson & Hallas 1986; etc.). Fred’s inventory of the Salticidae of the Seychelles Islands (Wanless 1984c), in which seven new species and one new genus were described, remains the only one of its kind. It is impossible to outline all of his taxonomic achievements in such a short, general account but, in recognition of his impressive contribution to salticid taxonomy, a genus, Wanlessia (from Borneo and Taiwan), and 11 species have been named in his honour." Still, the citability numbers are pretty low, even for someone who mainly worked in the 1970s-1980s, before the age of the internet. The obituary does mention that in the 1970s he served as an ordinary Council member and then as the Meetings Secretary for the British Arachnological Society. In terms of passing WP:PROF, I think one can plausibly argue either way here. Nsk92 ( talk) 16:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Switching to Weak keep in light of the additional obit uncovered by Russ Woodroofe. If nothing else, one can make an argument for passing WP:GNG now. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • OK, thanks for finding this source. I'll switch to weak keep then. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per the two in-depth published obituaries and WP:GNG, even though the case for WP:PROF still looks doubtful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Two substantial obituaries is a GNG pass, although one of them is in an obscure enough source that it is a bit weak. But the existence of the first speaks specifically to his impact for WP:NPROF C1, supported by other sources. (The WP:NPROF guideline says that a memorial volume suffices; the journal article is short of a volume, but is nontrivial and, as one would expect, supported by other sourcing.) The combination of the weak cases for GNG and for NPROF looks like a reasonably solid keep case to me. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R_Wanless&oldid=976152698"