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. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gordus[edit]

Andrew Gordus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There is little claim of notability for this subject or reasonable expectation that the article will grow beyond a stub. Perhaps this is a vanity page? Also see Gordus' Official Research Page. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. andy 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - some evidence of notability. See here and here. --Kimon^talk 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ummm, the google scholar link you provide lists papers such as: "Silence and Celebration: Queer Markings in the Poetry of Abigael Bohorquez by: A Bohorquez & AM Gordus" and "Bird use of an evaporation basin and a mitigation wetland by AG Gordus, J Seay & SB Terrill". I'm not sure how these bear on the notability of the person this article is about. Pete.Hurd 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - His publications are notable. I invite a specialist in his field to add more material to this article. JoJan 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteComment graduate student, h-index=2. Pete.Hurd 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A graduate student at Harvard. Graduate students have rarely accumulated the notability required to pass WP:PROF, and he seems no exception. He has two well cited pubs (according to Google scholar), and seems well on his way to a successful academic career, but hasn't yet had a chance to distinguish himself from his advisor and show that he can stand as a star of his field in his own right. —David Eppstein 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I disagree with David Eppstein in part: he doesn't need to be a star of his field to warrant a Keep. But I agree that more than this level of work is needed to qualify under WP:PROF or other notability guidelines. I also think that while I'm a a believer in the "more than average professor" provision of WP:PROF (and fond of noting how little the average professor actually publishes) I do think that graduate students need go beyond this level because--through less teaching and service experience--they are less likely to have local notability--which to me might justify an otherwise borderline article--or interest on the part of students and other researchers in reading this article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think if you look at the pattern of my comments on academic AfDs you'll find that I also don't require them all to be stars. But maybe, for a grad student researcher, that threshhold would be appropriate: there's less research, so they have to make up for it with exceptional quality. In any case my point was more the same as what DGG alludes to below with the placement of his name in the author lists of his papers: we can't tell how much of the credit for his two well-received papers should go to him vs to others, and likely won't be able to tell such matters until he starts publishing independently of his advisor. —David Eppstein 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, not sufficiently established to be notable and meet WP:PROF. --Bduke 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A graduate student with 2 published papers, and that is nowhere near enough. One excellent paper in PNAS with 49 GS citations, but only as one of eight authors, in the middle of the list. Another excellent one in Nature, cited by 42, one of four again in the middle. No indication of being principal author of either one. A very good start to your apprenticeship. DGG 00:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure he's got more than 2, but h-index is 2 (Gordus A & MacBeath G. 2006 J Am Chem Soc. 128:13668-9) makes 3... Pete.Hurd 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG as he fails WP:PROF. GreenJoe 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PubMed shows 3 papers, but it's still not enough for a GA (graduate assistant) to reach notability – yet. We may well have an article about him in the (near?) future for work still to come. KrakatoaKatie 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesnt pass PROF. John Vandenberg 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if his contributions are notable, the article fail to explain just what impact he's had, thus failing WP:BIO, and also per the above. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable at present. may become notable in future, but not right now xC | ☎ 19:40, 19 May 2007 (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.