Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Erives


 * 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Albert Erives

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I stumbled upon this article on an assistant professor at Iowa while trying to figure out Proto-anticodon RNA. Since the underlying scientific paper on "Proto-anti codon RNA" has been cited only once, I have come to the conclusion that Erives or someone associated with him is using Wikipedia to promote a fringe idea. The rest of Erives' citation record is unremarkable. Speciate (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral -- borderline case. He is Associate Prof (not Assistant) and citations of him do appear in several books and many articles, but seems just on the edge of WP:PROF tests.  I'll defer to someone who knows more about RNA work to see if he's notable, but not an easy case by any means.  I'd lean towards keep, but I don't think the article adds much that his faculty bio page already says, so I doubt humanity will lose any knowledge with a delete vote. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In no way does Associate Prof meet the standard at WP:PROF. Speciate (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm merely correcting a factual error in the nom. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The NSF CAREER award seems to satisfy criteria #2 under WP: PROF, "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". The NSF website states the CAREER award is "the National Science Foundation's most prestigious awards in support of junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education and the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organizations. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPBiochemie (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment An "NSF Career Award" is not really an award, it is a type of government grant. All researchers have grant (if not, they'll find themselves out of a job very soon), so this is really nothing out of the ordinary. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guillaume about the significance of the "award".  DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Continued... Also, in response to User:Speciate, the proto-anti-codonRNA paper in question was published in 2011, so the observation of it having only one citation is not that remarkable of an observation. Furthermore, RNA World and its variants are not in the realm of fringe idea. HPBiochemie (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be so kind as to state any conflicts of interest you might have regarding this person. Speciate (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your history of deleting content on 7 to 8 articles mentioning aspects of aminoacylated RNA World, we should also ask whether you have any conflicts of interest in this field. Personally, I contributed some of this content because of my interests in astrobiology and chemical origins of life and because of the novelty and utility of this idea of aminoacylated RNA World. HPBiochemie (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the citations to his work, which show him an authority in his subject. Google scholar has 162, 157, 115, 91, 69 ..., which even for experimental developmental biology is quite significant. h = only 11, but what it shows is someone whose relatively early career is already quite important. Without those 3 papers over 100, I'd have said, not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG. --Lambiam 22:23, 14 May 2012 (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.