Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Y. Hayden


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 21:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Y. Hayden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article de-PRODded by a University of Rochester IP with reason "I propose that this article remain on Wikipedia, as the the implications of Hayden's research for societal problems are profound". PROD reason was "Up-and-coming researcher. However, awards are minor and grants are what is to be expected of a young faculty. Web of Science lists 30 publications that have been cited 743 times (h-index=18) in this high-citation density field. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Article creation premature." Reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have been watching this page since its creation with some concern. I agree with the nominator about WP:TOOSOON. On first reading, the page does appear to meet GNG because of the numerous awards described, and the publications in high-quality scientific journals. However, I looked at the subject's website (from the external links section of the page), and he is an Assistant Professor at his university. Per WP:ACADEMIC, this places him below the notability threshold for academics, absent other demonstrations of notability. (I'll point out that the consensus at WP:ACADEMIC sets the threshold for notability here higher than it is set for living persons in various other areas of accomplishment. In part, this is because of the temptation to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO.) As for the awards, I've looked at them one-by-one, and they are all awards that are given to early-career scientists, the kinds of awards that are intended to help a young investigator get a career started. The publications are impressive, but typical of an early-career, tenure-track faculty member. If I were in the business of divining the future, I would predict that this subject is very likely to satisfy Wikipedia notability in the future. As the IP de-PRODder said, there are important implications, but we cannot get around WP:CRYSTAL until those implications are realized. For the present, it is premature to have a biographical page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. GS h-index of 18 in a highly cited field is a little too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. On a promising career track but WP:TOOSOON to have demonstrated adequate impact in what is a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2014 (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.