Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Myroniuk

Tyler Myroniuk

Tyler Myroniuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Assistant professor with no indication of meeting WP:NPROF. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, and Kansas. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NPROF#C1: 619 citations, h-index 16, 48 peer-reviewed publications, top-field venues, and Associate Editor of Demographic Research since 2022. NewTommy100 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC) — NewTommy100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A GScholar h-index of 16 does not seem particularly high relative to the field, e.g. 3/4 of his co-authors in this paper have higher h-indices. The other factors are insufficient for a pass under WP:NPROF#C1. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not arguing that h-index 16 alone is dispositive, the case is cumulative. The coauthor comparison is not a valid field baseline, since a selected coauthor set is inherently skewed by seniority and collaboration networks. Here we have 619 citations, h-index 16, 48 peer-reviewed publications, publications in selective demography/sociology/public-health venues, and Associate Editor service at Demographic Research. That is enough evidence of scholarly impact to rebut “no indication” and favor improvement over deletion. NewTommy100 (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Double-digit citation counts are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and merely being a member of an editorial board (rather than editor-in-chief) is not enough for #C8. Assistant professors are usually not notable by our standards; the rare exceptions are people on such a rapidly advancing trajectory that it is already clear they are stars of the field and their rank merely hasn't had time to catch up. In this case, though, he is 11 years out of a Ph.D. and still an assistant; this does not look problematic but it is not the star track that we would need for someone of this rank. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Research standing nowhere near notable. Athel cb (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Easy call. Not notable by academic standards and does not meet GNG criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Soft Keep. No independent press coverage, no major grants surfaced in public records, no awards on his page... but leadership roles at major journals that I think are worth discussion on notability. I went through and made a minor improvement to the page (and added some links to the page, which were requested). I think this is salvageable and worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenLegBay28 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete

MeadowRidge04 (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2026 (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.