This article was nominated for
deletion on December 8, 2006. The result of
the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is about a
botanist or someone who contributed to the field of
botany.
2006 Notability discussion
2006 Notability discussion
See the
notability guideline for individuals. While I'm sure Dr. Pantone is an excellent scientist, this article may not suffiicently assert the his notability to stay in Wikipedia. The sentence, "Dr. Pantone has established his notability by publishing scientific publications ranging from the biological control of pests to the conservation biology of endangered species" does not necessarily make it so.
The list of papers may not necessarily establish notability. The whole area of notability is murky and the standards keep shifting back and forward. To muddy the water further, see this unofficial essay on notability in academia and science:
21 pubs, 12 first authored (not counting one correction) - first authored pubs marked with *. These are in reverse chronological order. The number of citations (in other ISI indexed pubs) is listed first. IF is the
impact factor of the journal
2* (Journal of Nematology IF 0.810) - 1987
0* (Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science IF 0.759)
9* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
12* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
0* (Correction:Weed Science IF 1.536)
16* (Crop Science IF 0.925)
11* (Weed Science IF 1.536)
32* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)
3* (Weed Technology IF 0.749)
41 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)
0 (Agronomy Journal IF 1.473)
7 (Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science IF 1.147)
11* (Biological Conservation IF 2.581)
1* (Fundamental and Applied Nematology)
7* (Journal of Environmental Quality IF 2.121)
8 (Transactions of the ASAE IF 0.664)
4 (Weed Technology IF 0.749)
1 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)
0 (Biocontrol Science and Technology IF 0.857)
0 (Pest Management Science)- 2005
Based on this I'd say he passes
WP:PROF, since 21 pubs puts him above the "average" professor (since the guideline uses the American definition of Assistant Prof or better).
Guettarda05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
A. B., this is simply not true. No one specifically disagreed with
Guettarda's assessment that the author met the WP guidelines. With respect to "IF ratings," they were not used in the assessment; only the number of publications were used. In addition, the list of publications is not complete and lacked many important publications by the author in the fields of entomology, nematology and plant pathology. Moreover, the author never claimed to be a botanist, rather an ecologist. How can you dispute the WP Guidelines for
Wikipedia:Notability (people) that clearly state that if a an individual is "more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." You are wrong to put this subject on the WikiProject Plants and Peru pages and make a public debate about it. The scientist is "notable" using WP Guidelines.
Matses17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)reply
August 2012 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussion
The spam domain includes defamatory material on Pantone as well as material defending his nemesis, David John Nilsson, Australia's so-called "Carbon Cowboy". See the August BLP noticeboard discussion (above) for more background on this. The two journalists produced a television feature critical of Nillson and his dealing with Pantone and Amazonian tribes.
The site's owner claims:
"My name is Edward Warden a retired Australian Queensland CIB Policeman. I am devoted to bring Dan Pantone and his associates to justice where ever they may be hiding."
That domain is
now blacklisted on this Wikipedia; if it shows up on any other Wikimedia projects, it should be globally blacklisted at: :::*
meta:Talk:Spam blacklist
I still expect further defamation problems and possibly other spam domains.