Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Cleere

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Cleere

Nigel Cleere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single tertiary and weak secondary sourcing. Does not meet

I would like to see somebody else's opinion on this, just to make sure that he is not notable enough to be deleted. If you can provide this, then I think that it should be deleted. Basically, I want a second opinion on this. RileyBugz (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed RileyBugz, and I also want to let you know that I am newly venturing into editing articles beyond content and into the realm of more administrative function. I have done a lot of looking at prior AfD discussions and formed my opinion based on that research. I'm looking forward to other input here very much. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional weak delete keep. He has a few nice cites on GS, I'm not sure how well cited ornithology is. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. This is a tought one. The entry is poorly done, no doubts. Still, Nigel Cleere seems a well-establised researcher and author on his particular area of expertise. See here,here, here, here. As the first link shows, his books and other publications, individual and in collabortion, have been well-reviewed, and are popular among general readership (here). But I can't find anything else. No CV, no award, no nomination. We might be missing something here. While science researchers could flourish outside of a university context, as he is attached to a research organization (British Ornithologists' Club), an individual like him must have won awards. But again, researchers unafiliated to universities are often at a disadvantage in regards to being exposed to the media. Those experienced with notability among scholars could certainly help here. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 06:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as what's listed here is in fact sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful delete. I'm sure he's a fine author, but I simply couldn't find reliable yet independent secondary sources on this person. Sro23 (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He has co-authored several journal articles, such as this one, which places a bird in a new genus, but I am not sure if that makes him notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeep the article is inadequate. First,the book mentioned is a standard work, reprinted by Yale University Press as well as some specialized publishers. He is also one oworldCat records such as [1] have been accepted as the needed secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 6 January 2017 (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.