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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Spyksma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Doesn't look like he is sufficiently notable enough academic to justify an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Noteworthy guidelines state that a publication makes you noteworthy. Spyksma has had multiple publications. Trit (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publications about you surely not publications of your own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar lists only single-digit citations to his work. As with most Wikipedia articles on junior faculty, this appears to have been created prematurely: his work has not yet had time to gain the impact required by WP:PROF #1, and there is no other criterion he comes close to meeting. Google news search also finds nothing. Trit's suggestion that having a single publication makes one noteworthy is a gross misreading of WP:PROF (which requires the publications to make an impact — even having many publications is explicitly stated in that guideline as being insufficient) or WP:GNG (which, as Spartaz says, requires the publications to be about rather than by the subject). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WoS shows similar results using "Author=(Spyksma K*)": 5 papers with citations 3, 2, 1, 0, 0 for an h-index of only 2 – not terribly surprising for a relatively-recent graduate. This is another textbook case of an article way too early. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. As shown above, notability is not yet there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 20 December 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.