Deletion of Mark Kos

Comment: Targetted WoS search: "Author=(kos m*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS OR PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL OR INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION OR PHYSICS, NUCLEAR OR NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY OR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" returns 20 hits with citation counts of 364, 221, 26, 22, 19, ... Checking more closely, we find that most of these are "big physics" papers, many having >100 authors (with his name in roughly the middle), although there is one paper in 'J. MAG. RESONANCE A' where he's one of three authors. Note: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the "Kos" on all these papers is actually our subject. Descriptors like "monumental" and such are naked  and should be disregarded. These observations precisely describe a post-doc who has assisted in research work early in their career, but who is in no way notable on their own yet. This article is probably at least 10 years pre-mature and it is regrettable that so many commentators here spend so much collective time weeding these out. Perhaps grad-student and post-doc articles could be directly prodded first as a general convention? (I see this one was, but many aren't.) Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFF)

Comment: Doesn't meet . Perhaps in a few years
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)