Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Pike


 * 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. Consensus is he's well cited enough, and AfD is not cleanup Star   Mississippi  01:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian Pike

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. No fellowships to societies (the John Douglas French one is a grant). Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology,  and Medicine. Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep With 30 papers with over 100 cites a clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Keep. He has almost 13,000 citations and an h-index of 56 on Scopus. This is indeed a high-citation field, and while he's only around the top 15% of his coauthors by h-index I think that's still going to put him way above the median citation profile of his peers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against a properly recreated article in the future. He may be notable but this is barely represented by this article's sourcing, which couldn't be more meager. I'm willing to change my !vote if the article sees some improvement during the discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Meager sources? There are 13,000 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC).
 * The article only cites one. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sourcing within the article needs improvement, but he passes WP:NPROF via citations and h-index. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meet WP:NPROF due to academic citations. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a lot of citations and clearly meets WP:NPROF Kazanstyle (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, but Delete if nobody can demonstrate that this passes WP:NPROF with independent reliable sources that pass WP:NOTABLE. Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.
 * I'm not certain that the Turken Award counts as a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level, as per WP:NACADEMIC. I don't mean to be insensitive or discount this person's obvious accomplishments, but Wikipedia has very specific requirements for notability. The void century (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPROF is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". To me this is a clear pass under criteria 1, sub-section a: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." The majority of citations are independant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2022 (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.