Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron F. Straight


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Aaron F. Straight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and without any supporting sources, WP:GNG.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  10:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Associate professor who does not reach the (admittedly demanding) standard of WP:Notability (academics). The article author wrote on the talk page "I work at Stanford Department of Biochemistry and have been asked to create a wikipedia page for all of our professors". I have tried to head him off at the pass by explaining on his talk page about WP:COI and advising that he submits drafts, and only about those who meet WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  11:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unambiguous delete per WP:GNG and probably WP:PROF. Biochem is a very active field with a high threshold for "making a significant impact," and his memberships are of the rank-and-file variety; we might be missing something important about him, but we can't know because his WP:RS coverage is nil. Thanks for working on explaining, I'll go try to soothe feelings without piling on. FourViolas (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC); edited 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. An h-index of 25, by my count, is enough for WP:PROF. His top paper has 889 citations. -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep His work is well and widely cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's well-cited, although that's much less remarkable in the life sciences than in other areas (see H-index); we could argue about his PROF#1 status. But we simply can't make an article without independent WP:RS, and all I can find is a list of authors in a Stanford press release, a list of fellowship winners in a Stanford press release (with a sentence about research interests), and half a paragraph in Stanford's official PR mouthpiece. There's nothing like in-depth coverage, and no independent sources. FourViolas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's his university web page for basic facts, and there's copious literature where other scientists discuss his work. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately. I sympathize with the article creator's comments on the talk page - WP:PROF is pretty woolly and Wikipedia's coverage of scientists is so patchy and inconsistent that waiting for "someone random" to write articles is like funding your morning coffee exclusively with change you find on the sidewalk. Despite the COI, the article is not promotional in tone and doesn't exaggerate the subject's achievements. (Also, holy crap look at that poor person's talk page. Thanks for being a voice of sanity.) But in the end Straight is just following a normal high-performer career trajectory, not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.