- 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. Insufficient coverage to show he meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. RL0919 ( talk) 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Christopher Kaelin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Christopher Kaelin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:NPROF and does not meet WP:GNG subject has mostly trivial passing mention coverage. Lightburst ( talk) 05:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 12:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The
Google Scholar link in the article nicely provides a few alternative search queries, but adding up the results gives an h-index of only 13. Six papers are in the triple-digit range, but they're all collaborations, and in none is Kaelin the lead author. I'd have a hard time shaking a pass of
WP:PROF#C1 out of this. Of the references currently presented,
[1] and
[2] are from Kaelin's employer, so they'd be fine for fleshing out content but they don't really indicate the world-at-large paying attention. The only independent source that goes into any detail about Kaelin's own role in the work is
Ed Yong's piece
[3]:
Christopher Kaelin and Xing Xu focused on the region that Eizirik had identified ... Kaelin and Xu sequenced the gene in Kgosi, a captive king cheetah ... Kaelin got in touch with Ann van Dyk, the woman who first identified that king cheetahs were a mutant version of the regular ones.
Having your work written up by Ed Yong is a nice feather in one's cap, but in this case, I'm not convinced that Kaelin himself stands out personally. Without something else, it's hard to make the case that we need an article about Kaelin himself, instead of writing about the research in the appropriate articles (on genetics, developmental biology, reaction-diffusion models, etc.). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: XOR'easter, I started the article, and I also nominated it for deletion. I now believe that it may be WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article on this subject. Your suggestion about inserting the research in the appropriate articles is intriguing. Lightburst ( talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Well sourced. WP:Sigcov in WP:RS. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Sources are about the research results, not Kaelin himself – perhaps key findings can be mentioned at bengal cat but here it's just a WP:REFBOMB. Quotes by Kaelin is NOT SigCov on Kaelin's biography. Does not appear to pass NPROF as an academic. Reywas92 Talk 18:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I tend to give benefit of the doubt if there's no WP:PROMO, no promoted website, and I don't have to read about his girlfriend and three cats Cheerio042 ( talk) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Striking blocked sock Britishfinance ( talk) 10:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)- Delete His research has not reached the point of being impactful in his field, so he fails Academic notability guidelines 1, and no other academic notability guideline does he even come close to passing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:Too soon but time may change that. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
- Delete. Kaelin's work certainly has potential and as he says himself (as quoted in the article) this could be basic research leading to cures for diseases in the future. But, unfortunately, I'm not seeing significant impact of his research in the genetics field or its potential in the medical field. He only has passing mentions in magazine articles that refer to him and his team's work. Being an expert is not sufficient to pass WP:PROF or WP:PROF#1. Also, I agree this is WP:TOOSOON for a this as a Wikipedia article. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (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.
- 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. Insufficient coverage to show he meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. RL0919 ( talk) 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Christopher Kaelin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Christopher Kaelin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:NPROF and does not meet WP:GNG subject has mostly trivial passing mention coverage. Lightburst ( talk) 05:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 12:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 13:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The
Google Scholar link in the article nicely provides a few alternative search queries, but adding up the results gives an h-index of only 13. Six papers are in the triple-digit range, but they're all collaborations, and in none is Kaelin the lead author. I'd have a hard time shaking a pass of
WP:PROF#C1 out of this. Of the references currently presented,
[1] and
[2] are from Kaelin's employer, so they'd be fine for fleshing out content but they don't really indicate the world-at-large paying attention. The only independent source that goes into any detail about Kaelin's own role in the work is
Ed Yong's piece
[3]:
Christopher Kaelin and Xing Xu focused on the region that Eizirik had identified ... Kaelin and Xu sequenced the gene in Kgosi, a captive king cheetah ... Kaelin got in touch with Ann van Dyk, the woman who first identified that king cheetahs were a mutant version of the regular ones.
Having your work written up by Ed Yong is a nice feather in one's cap, but in this case, I'm not convinced that Kaelin himself stands out personally. Without something else, it's hard to make the case that we need an article about Kaelin himself, instead of writing about the research in the appropriate articles (on genetics, developmental biology, reaction-diffusion models, etc.). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: XOR'easter, I started the article, and I also nominated it for deletion. I now believe that it may be WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article on this subject. Your suggestion about inserting the research in the appropriate articles is intriguing. Lightburst ( talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Well sourced. WP:Sigcov in WP:RS. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Sources are about the research results, not Kaelin himself – perhaps key findings can be mentioned at bengal cat but here it's just a WP:REFBOMB. Quotes by Kaelin is NOT SigCov on Kaelin's biography. Does not appear to pass NPROF as an academic. Reywas92 Talk 18:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I tend to give benefit of the doubt if there's no WP:PROMO, no promoted website, and I don't have to read about his girlfriend and three cats Cheerio042 ( talk) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Striking blocked sock Britishfinance ( talk) 10:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)- Delete His research has not reached the point of being impactful in his field, so he fails Academic notability guidelines 1, and no other academic notability guideline does he even come close to passing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:Too soon but time may change that. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
- Delete. Kaelin's work certainly has potential and as he says himself (as quoted in the article) this could be basic research leading to cures for diseases in the future. But, unfortunately, I'm not seeing significant impact of his research in the genetics field or its potential in the medical field. He only has passing mentions in magazine articles that refer to him and his team's work. Being an expert is not sufficient to pass WP:PROF or WP:PROF#1. Also, I agree this is WP:TOOSOON for a this as a Wikipedia article. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (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.