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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Ingolia

Nicholas Ingolia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable assistant professor at Berkeley. There are 4 book mentions at Google Books and one at Google News. Not sure, this is enough. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep This guy has been author on several relatively recent papers with 1,000+ citations ( Google Scholar stats). While I don't see an official metric on what the WP:NACADEMIC standards are for "highly-cited," I would say he meets Criterion 1 of the specific criteria. Enwebb ( talk) 22:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Roleren I am a master student in bioinformatics, and this guy have changed our field, he deserves an article, and have more then enough citations on google scholar, dont you think ? I understand why it should not be here, but should wikipedia only be a place for famous dead guys known to everybody ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roleren ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete the issue is not being "highly cited" but being impactful, and the evidence does not show that Ingolia is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete He has published many articles, some with 2000 citations, however, he is only an assistant professor, and seems quite young. No features discussing his contribution I could see. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Two first-author papers with over 1000 cites each are enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me, regardless of his academic rank. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep A GS h-index of 33, over 10,000 citations total, 3 publications in the major journals with over 1,000 citations apiece, and two of those are first-author... passes WP:PROF#C1. Coverage in National Geographic and The Scientist wouldn't be enough by itself, but it doesn't hurt [1] [2]. He's also a 2011 Searle Scholar [3] and a 2014 recipient of an NIH Director's New Innovator Award [4]. Oh, and he's on a peer-review committee for the American Cancer Society, which isn't as prestigious as, e.g., being editor-in-chief of a journal, but it ought to be worth mentioning somewhere [5]. Basically, earlier-career scientists can still be notable, titles notwithstanding. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• keep The number of citations and h-index convince me he's notable in his field, regardless of his rank at Berkeley. The article is pretty sparse, but that's not the issue here. Sandals1 ( talk) 16:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I normally abhor fussing over citation counts in notability discussions, but this case seems to be a pretty well cited author. Enough for a stub at least. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF; the article is an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

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.