David S. Liem: WP:NACADEMIC isn't met (unsurprising given that most of his career is outside of academia), and there are no other claims.  I haven't been able to find other material supporting notability for this David Liem.  Klbrain ( talk ) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , while I acknowledge the current scarcity of sources provided for David Liem's Wikipedia article, it's important to consider the context in which the article was created.  At the time of its creation, my primary focus was on promptly documenting Liem's contributions, particularly his discovery of the Rheobatrachus silus species.  This urgency made me reach the realization that including Liem's page would complete and improve the species' article.  Sources probably exist out there and we shouldn’t just delete it per WP:NPOSSIBLE .  V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I must address the procedural concerns surrounding the deletion request.  The unilateral decision to move the article to a different page ( Eungella tinker frog ) without prior consultation or discussion is concerning and goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.  Subsequently proposing the deletion of the article without engaging in constructive dialogue further exacerbates this issue as the person that nominated the article for deletion seems to have done it spontaneously.  V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry that this is all a bit blunt V.B.Sepanza, and thanks for your contributions to the project.  The move was part of the new page patrol protocol which doesn't include or expect consultation prior to moves; I marked the move as bold, and don't mind being reversed.  The next step, having been reversed, is to seek wider views here given that if the merge isn't a suitable alternative to deletion, then deletion seems the way forward.  Thanks for adding your views as the page creator.  Klbrain ( talk ) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Klbrain : Your deletion nomination brings 0 benefits to the community, Wikipedians seem to only care about known stuff while advocating for the contrary.  The page is a direct translation of the German page that originates from the French page (created in 2009).  V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Science , Indonesia , Australia , Illinois , Maryland ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete GS cites inadequate in a high-cited field and the frog is not enough.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think taxonomy is a high-citation field; the nomination seems to confuse hepatology (a high-citation medical specialty) with herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians, his actual work area).  Regardless, he doesn't have enough citations even in a low-citation field to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for the typo!  Klbrain ( talk ) 08:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:58, 7 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete