Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keifer Walsh

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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Walsh[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to AfD after declining a speedy. I think it merits discussion. Many students 'take part' in research that becomes notable, but the extent of their actual contribution to the projects is another matter. Also - is the research here notable? Being a name on a paper is no guarantee of an article on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A graduate student having 2 papers with his advisor as corresponding author (about average for a grad student, but not notable for WP) and the winner of an award at a student research showcase (also not notable for WP). The article was written by a SPA and it is often the case that when an article is about a grad student, its purpose is to bolster a job application upon graduation (CV: I have been recognized on Wikipedia). This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Three pubs in Google scholar with max citation count = 2 is far below the standard for WP:PROF (even setting aside the difficulty of disentangling the subject's contributions from the contributions of his more notable advisor James Bamburg) and there seems to be no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Puff pieces in school-affiliated sources such as this one don't really contribute towards GNG-notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or PROF. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Publications pretty typical of someone at his level. Article written by COI [[1]] i.e. his main research collaborator. Cowlibob (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as specified I would have deleted in as A7, but since it;s come here, let;'s get the full decision. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Getting first named author in a PLOS ONE paper shows the research he has been involved in isn't to be dismissed, however this alone is not notable enough in itself to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are various practice in selecting author names: both by subject field, and idiosyncratic preference. My own advisor, for example, made sure that each of his doctoral graduates would have one paper as first author and one paper as sole author. In biochem, it is usual nowadays for the last author to be the significant one, but it varies, and by itself it proves little -- just as Drchriswilliams says. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (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.