Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Steinhardt


 * 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, no prejudice to recreation at later date. Likely TOOSOON. Tone 09:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Charles Steinhardt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see GNG or ACADEMIC demonstrated for this article. The article states that he was co-PI of the BUFFALO Hubble Space Telescope survey, but I don't think this survey is large enough to qualify WP:NACADEMIC #6. Currently an associate professor, so will perhaps have notability in the future, but not now I'm afraid. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete. Off to a very good start but not there quite yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete. I identified only one criterion he could meet, namely C1 of WP:NACADEMIC, and I don't think he's got enough citations for that yet. His numbers are widely lifted by a work authored by fifty people or something like that. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 23:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. he does most of his work with a large group. Time will tell. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC).


 * Weak delete Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. He a founding member of a centre, but not in charge of it. h-index of 22 according to Google Scholar, with 1/3 of all cites from a single paper with many authors though. Has an asteroid named after him, but not sure how significant that is. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete people do not "deserve a spot on Wikipedia". We build inclusion on coverage in secondary sources. Most of the sources here are materials written by Steinhardt. Those can not be used to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citation record is impressive for a 2010 PhD. However not quite enough here to satisfy WP:PROF right now on citability alone, given that he works in a fairly high citation field and most papers have a large number of co-authors. There does not appear to be anything else here to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF right now. Does look like the case of WP:TOOSOON for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. He looks on-track to passing WP:PROF in the not too distant future, but I agree that the high numbers of coauthors weaken his citation record and the case for WP:PROF, and that it the only likely criterion that he could pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (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.