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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan P. Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I first saw this article when I was googling Alan C. Peterson, which I thought he had a Wikipedia page, since I saw the name, Alan Peterson in it, only to see a disambiguation of the page. Among the highlighted ones is a page about an American ornithologist and taxonomist who happens to have the same name, which I clicked, only to find it a stub.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale but the stub makes no case for notability so we will have to look elsewhere for that. Google Scholar search for his name (skipping off-topic articles likely by others with similar names) found six publications, two of which have single-digit citations and the rest of which have none. Searching for "zoonomen" worked better but still found a max of 22 citations, the rest single-digit. That is far below WP:PROF#C1 levels even in a very low citation field. Web searching finds him responsible for a web taxonomy resource, but otherwise an amateur. Being an amateur is not in any way a bad thing but it means none of the other avenues for PROF notability are open. That leaves GNG, but I couldn't find enough coverage for notability for his web site, let along enough for inherited notability for him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. The claim to fame is Zoonomen, and a listing of Peterson and Zoonomen in ITIS, mainly due to Zoonomen being linked in " Other Source(s): " for some entries really is not enough for notability. I don't see how NPROF or GNG are met. --Mvqr (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2023 (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.