Deletion of David R. Hekman

Comment: It has been well established above that rof notability is not met. The subject's work on hot issues in social anthropology has garnered a few newspaper articles, not uncommon for that topic of popular interest. However a much more substantial record is needed for notability. For a researcher who publishes in the scholarly literature many hundred of citations to dozens of refereed papers are usually needed for notability. I am unwilling to accept that one article in a newspaper is somehow equivalent to a hundred citations in the refereed literature although I am not able to say what sort of equivalence can be established. The article has been created too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: The field of business is quite new (the top journal, Academy of Management Journal, is only 52 years old), and the initial couple decades of research in the field done by business gurus can hardly be considered research. The  guidelines basically exclude faculty from new fields because the fields are small (which means low citation counts), the pioneer faculty were typically not researchers (e.g. business gurus), and the best work in the field is the most recent work.  Should Wikipedia include faculty from new academic fields
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: He doesn't seem to pass  yet but the media attention to more than one of his studies is enough for , I think. In response to CronopioFlotante: if it were only the one study, it would be a case of BIO1E, but the ''American Life'' piece is about a different one, I think. As for "one of five authors", the NYT article calls him the lead author
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)