Deletion of Alastair Robinson

Comment: Major authority for carnivorous plants. To address the points of the OP, it is common knowledge that the h-index index is skewed towards particular areas of science; the / page even takes the time to explain that such indices "should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted". The same page states that it is very difficult to make clear requirements of numbers of publications or their quality, the criteria varying enormously by field. This is especially true of taxonomy, and in this instance, the scientist in question has published additional peer reviewed papers to the 8 cited by the OP, but in academic books, whose cross-citations are not indexed like journals. Moreover,/, which "is a guideline and not a rule", states that academic books are acceptable and that "Criterion 1 can be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - a read of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00942.x/pdf puts forward palaeogeographic proof for an important theorized historical migration route of Nepenthes in a paper that is favourably reviewed by members of the Linnean Society in their annual highlights for the same year. It is not our place to decide who that information is important to, but the theory and proof certainly seem to be important information in this topic of research. Regarding assertions of COI, many editors carry out good faith edits on pet-projects because we have the time and/or access to specific information (I work in a botanical library that receives notices of all new species published, in addition to copyright titles) - I felt that the research of Alastair Robinson and Stewart McPherson (geographer) (also singled out by the OP) merited inclusion in Wikipedia - particular as both parties are each named a dozen times on various articles within Wikipedia. I am not wedded to their inclusion and do not benefit from it, but I do believe that it is better that someone running a search for either party (the logs show that people do search for these names) or following through from other Wikipages actually arrives at a useful page with useful information on it rather than nothing at all. It is in the spirit of access to information for all that current, even niche, areas of research - and their instigators - be accessible where there is a context for it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:PROF||WP:ACADEMIC)