Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Pyron Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Pyron

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pyron

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a post-doc who has been promised a job as an assistant prof in 2011, and with a single digit h-index, there is no way this person will be passing WP:PROF anytime soon. (Although his career is somewhat more accelerated than most...) Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What h-index is acceptable? If you look on Google Scholar for RA Pyron (his traditional article listing) you have some that have 12 and 13 citations. Also he'se been cited by in many news media artilces, generally ones about snakes, as being an expert. Thanks for your response.

-- RandorXeus. 15:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each regular participant in these AfDs has a different opinion on the value of using the h-index, and of the number needed to pass. Basically, one would have to discover the average h for full professors in that field. For example, Dolph Schluter has an h around 59. J.J. Bull has an h around 51. Brian Charlesworth has an h around 61. (I am using Google Scholar, but it would be better to use WebofKnowledge if one has access.) Since these guys are big names, perhaps an h of about half theirs, around 25, would be sufficient in evolutionary biology. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for the information. I'll use it in the future. -- RandorXeus. 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The GScholar search returns 14 hits; having an article cited 12 or 13 times does not constitute a "significant contribution" to the field, and most articles have far fewer hits. He may be notable some day, but right now he does not pass WP:PROF. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's reasonable. I didn't know what the standard was. I can't say I truly understand any of the notability guidlines. It seems like they were written then amended because a few people who were notable did not necessarily meet those guidlines. I vote delete as the primary author. -- RandorXeus. 19:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a postdoc for now, fairly low citability, no significant awards. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom's arguments are conlcusive – this is an uncontroversial delete. I'll just add here that his WoS h-index is only 5, which we would not even consider for a fairly low-citation field (which evo-bio definitely is not). This person could be notable in the future, but right now this article is just WP:PROMOTION. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A named assistant professorship is not the type of position that WP:PROF#C5 was intended to cover, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources and citations provide no evidence of this guy passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if he somehow becomes notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2010 (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.