Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Derecki

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. ✗plicit 00:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Derecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A few bit parts (references to IMDB) and a few publications as a PhD in neuroscience don't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable as an actor. In terms of his academic work it is WP:TOOSOON.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. [1] actually doesn't look too bad, but at the same time they are multi-authored. His most cited paper is actuall very well cited (2.5k in Nature), but at the same time it has 12 authors, which means it's anybody's bet if author X or Y was doing serious work there or just riding along for one reason or another (click me). This really rests only on the citation count, since there is nothing else to suggest NBIO is met, and as such, it's probably is not enough (since NPROF is just a supplementary addition to NBIO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. 4k citations and 6 papers with 100+ citations are generally enough to keep an article per WP:NPROF and the acting just adds to notability. --hroest 00:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a high citation field, and 2,500 of those citations are from a paper where he is the 7th named author.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Countering the point by Eostrix, the next 2 most cited articles, each with 500+ on GS, were first-author articles, without too many other authors. Countering the point by hroest, the h-index is 13, and hroest recently !voted to delete on someone with at least an h-index of 17, far more coverage, and significant disadvantages for h-index (e.g. working in some lower-citation fields, publishing in several different fields, having very few self-citations, etc.), granted the citation count was 1000 lower if we remove the 2500+ citation paper referred to by Eostrix. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These are the Scopus citation metrics for Derecki and 98 of his extended* coauthors with more than 10 papers:

Total citations: avg: 8123, med: 2733, Derecki: 3254.

Total papers: avg: 110, med: 44, D: 17.

h-index: avg: 33, med: 24, D: 13.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 1054, med: 690, D: 1735. 2nd: avg: 518, med: 254, D: 433. 3rd: avg: 375, med: 220, D: 410. 4th: avg: 295, med: 151, D: 137. 5th: avg: 243, med: 131, D: 91.

Top first-author citation: avg: 419, med: 195, D: 433.

*Extended coauthors: 25 direct coauthors + 73 of his top 3 collaborators' coauthors on their most recent 5 papers. Looking at just his direct coauthors, the values are:

TC: avg: 10323, med: 4186, D: 3254. TP: avg: 103, med: 53, D: 17. h: avg: 39, med: 24, D: 13. 1st: avg: 1400, med: 1735, D: 1735. 2nd: avg: 620, med: 433, D: 433. 3rd: avg: 472, med: 292, D: 410. 4th: avg: 400, med: 243, D: 137. 5th: avg: 327, med: 243, D: 91. FA: avg: 695, med: 292, D: 433.

So, very promising but only a bit above the median in his field, which with a very low paper cutoff (10) is skewed toward early post-docs (this is a high-publication discipline). I would say TOOSOON if he was still in academia, but haven't evaluated him for GNG yet. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced by his acting coverage either, so for now he is just a TOOSOON scientist. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:52, 2 June 2021 (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.