Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasunori Hayashi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yasunori Hayashi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an obscure person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CBFan (talk • contribs)

PAGE ]] ) 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) PAGE ]] ) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saying WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't override the fact that this person doesn't meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. Being published doesn't establish notability, and I don't see any independent reliable sources that this person has made a significant impact within or outside their field. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 27.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepWith all due respect, User:Ahecht, this scientist does meet WP:PROF, as is evident from his GS h-index of 39.  Jinkinson   talk to me  00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The standards in WP:PROF don't say that an h-index determines notability, and 39 is just a WP:BIGNUMBER. From WP:PROF: "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others." Also: "GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only." --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * The warning above is directed at people who are not familiar with the world of scholarly publishing and citations. Most of the other contributors to this AfD, from their edit records, are. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Strong keep on basis of stunning cites on Google scholar. 9-edit nominator is invited to withdraw the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
 * The nominator seems to have been here only on Sept 20 of last year... The AfD has languished in limbo since then. Somebody must have transcluded it correctly yesterday. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Along with the clear pass of WP:PROF (two papers with over 1000 cites each in Google scholar, etc) I think the Japan Academy Medal is the sort of "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level" that is described by #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This AFD was created more than six months ago by an editor who has made two--count 'em, two--edits since then, one of which was to create a talk page for a nonexistent user, and none of which have occurred more recently than September 20, 2013. I think we're wasting our time trying to communicate with him. However, I can't help but wonder why this malformed and misinformed AFD languished for so long before anyone noticed it. Jinkinson   talk to me  04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per the above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The citation evidence is not overwhelming for this field, but the career corpus and participation in some impactful work would seem to meet at least WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Requires some prose, but clearly a significant researcher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 29 March 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.