Justin English: I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG .  Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1.  Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology .  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine , New York , North Carolina ,  and Utah .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support as per nomination.  He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present.  I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission.  It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain ( talk · contribs ) and Qcne ( talk · contribs ).  Adam Black t • c 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping @ Adam Black GB .  I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC , and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles.  Happy to defer to consensus in this case.  Qcne (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your work at AfC.  For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h -index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers.  I'm surprised this got through AfC.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale.  At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines.  Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable?  The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself.  Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1.  In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles.  If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:Too soon .  Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .   As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers.   Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF.   Little other sign of notability.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The comments above citing WP:Too soon are spot on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlassian ( talk • contribs ) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:Too soon not notable at this point.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete