Deletion of Nicholas Ingolia

Comment: meets ; the article is an acceptable stub at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: A GS h-index of https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5LXPLI0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao 33, over 10,000 citations total, 3 publications in ''the'' major journals with over 1,000 citations apiece, and two of those are first-author... passes #C1. Coverage in ''National Geographic'' and ''The Scientist'' wouldn't be enough by itself, but it doesn't hurt https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110803-vampire-bats-blood-heat-veins-science-animals-nature/https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46150/title/Noncoding-RNAs-Not-So-Noncoding/. He's also a 2011 Searle Scholars Program|Searle Scholar http://www.searlescholars.net/person/567 and a 2014 recipient of an NIH Director's New Innovator Award https://commonfund.nih.gov/newinnovator/awardrecipients. Oh, and he's on a peer-review committee for the American Cancer Society, which isn't as prestigious as, e.g., being editor-in-chief of a journal, but it ought to be worth mentioning somewhere https://www.cancer.org/research/we-fund-cancer-research/apply-research-grant/peer-review-committees/rna-mechanisms-cancer.html. Basically, earlier-career scientists can still be notable, titles notwithstanding
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: This guy has been author on several relatively recent papers with 1,000+ citations (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5LXPLI0AAAAJ Google Scholar stats). While I don't see an official metric on what the  standards are for "highly-cited," I would say he meets Criterion 1 of the specific criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: Two first-author papers with over 1000 cites each are enough for #C1 for me, regardless of his academic rank
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)