Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyn Smith

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Smith

Per WP:PROF, some good, solid publications, such as PMID 10617196 and PMID 11071764, but no significant academic positions, editorships or awards I can find, and doesn't appear to have had the time to produce a lasting influence. Looks like a promising young scientist, but not an established leader in this field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the authors publications, especially the Nature paper, are just enough to establish a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, thus passing the first criterion of WP:PROF. -Atmoz (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good work, but just as a doctoral student of Tabin, who was senior author on all the papers. The only heavily cited ones are those where Smith was just a member of the research group with a middle position in the authorship. A Nature paper is not necessarily notable: the one here has only had 19 references to it in the 10 years since publication. As for his current significance, becoming recognized as... is a key marker for non-notability. As an academic, one who left the profession right after his PhD to become a so far non notable businessman--if he becomes notable at that, It'll be another matter entirely. The person who needs an article is Clifford Tabin, who has had a very notable impact as a developmental biologist. DGG (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wasn't sure what to make of the Nature ref, myself. And as I mentioned on the article creator's Talk page, I was struck by how Smith was being positioned not as a notable researcher but as a "Principal" of an apparently non-notable firm (article on Barry frankel (sic) speedied; article on Frankel group (again, sic) well on its way to failing Afd). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's analysis to which I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, as shown by DGG, or WP:BIO. In addition to the points made above, citation impact seems to be low.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG's thoughts. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (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.