@Tripholiada - You asked for help on my talk page. The article Ray Watling uses only HIS papers to assert notability. WP:GNG - the General notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and especially those for academics at WP:PROF, require that scientists, professors, etc. must have 3rd party reliable sources that confirm the subject's notability in his/her field. It is original research for a Wikipedia editor to point a list of papers (or songs, or pieces of art, or even books) and assert the notability of subject based on it. Wikipedia does not prove notability - it reflects it. If you look at another article, like Lorna Casselton - the article is properly formatted, written, and most importantly - cited. The London Gazette, the Royal Society, and The Guardian are all cited as well as her own publications. The Watling article, as submitted for publication, is a wall of text with no 3rd party citations. EBY (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at the Lorna Casselton article, quite a few of her references were written by her. The first reference I provided for Roy Watling was not written by Roy Watling. Dr. Watling's research was published by peer review, which gives it more credibility than an article written by some tabloid with the intent to make money. Again the information I have written has nothing to do with his personal life and is about his scientific achievements. Given that all of the papers I have published have been cited and used in other research and papers (by other scientists), I think it is safe to assume that he is accepted within the field of Mycology.
Would you prefer I cited some amazon.com book reviews? (that would certainly be 3rd party/un-biased)