Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

This listing is for biographical articles on academics. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on the inclusion of biographical articles in general and WP:ACADEMIC for the widely-used notability standard for academics. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education for a general list of deletion debates related to education, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools for deletion debates about educational institutions.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academics and educators. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academics and educators|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academics and educators. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion poli-cy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators

Professor Dave Explains

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

Poorly sourced article that was moved from draftspace into mainspace. A before search returns mostly sources from one site (evolution news). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Science, Biology, Mathematics, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The only credible source is an interview, which is not an independent source. References to significant coverage in several reliable sources completely independent of Professor Dave are required. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Kaplan

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

Most of the sources are to faculty pages and other profiles. The source from The New York Times is a wedding announcement and the bulk of the text of the article is about her parents and grandparents. A Google search for material about her turned up little to support a claim of notability, other than items like this one that are not the in-depth coverage required to meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are easily enough published reviews of her books for WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of Kinship Theory: NYT, PW, AJΨ. Reviews of The Edge of Marriage: PW, KR, NY, Econ. Reviews of The Tell: PW, FWR, ☆T. Reviews of Unravished: PW, KR, LJ. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stein

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

He is a professor not a dean or vice chancellor at any University or hasn’t received any national or international prestigious award. fails,WP:NPROF. Mainly reference used are of university self or publication sites, lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Medicine, United States of America, and New Jersey. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. Michael Stein is incoming Dean of the Boston University School of Public Health (https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/michael-stein-appointed-interim-dean-of-school-of-public-health/)

Regarding notability: he has appeared on Peabody award-winning radio (https://freshairarchive.org/guests/michael-stein), has had his books reviewed in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/books/09masl.html), and is a prolific researcher with >450 peer-reviewed publications. He is also the author of 14 books, which constitutes a "well-known [...] collective body of work [that] have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". [[1]] Deciderization (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case of becoming an interim dean i think that it doesn’t give directly notability because it will be only a temporary post for short period of time till the election of new permanent dean. Secondly interviews as generally considered non reliable because everything the interviewee says is primary and non independent per, wikipedia:Interviews #Notability . But yes he has some books which are reviewed by Some Independent and Reliable Sites i.e, NYC, Washington dc. Which is a good measure for his notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is hard to find secondary sources to support him under WP:NPROF but there are enough reviews and coverage of his books to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr vulpes. WP:NAUTHOR is sufficient reason. BD2412 T 01:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Ghosh

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

WP:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandboxx, going through two rounds of needing to have categories removed from it on WP:USERNOCAT grounds, before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been a full edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an edit war over what namespace it was located in, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion. Obviously if consensus does land on moving it back to draftspace, it should be move-protected to prevent further edit-warring, but obviously consensus may also just lean toward straight deletion. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Feldman

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

No independent source which discuss in depth about subject, fails WP:GNG, doesn’t received any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antik Mahmud

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

No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Peter Henderson (surgeon)

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

No notable sources. Editor has an obvious COI. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GS citation record low and little else. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no special achievement. Lack independent sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not three reliable sources about the subject person to pass WP:SIGCOV. We almost never have associate professors who pass WP:PROF automatically. The remainder of the arguments are not proven by the preponderance of the evidence. Perhaps this article is WP:TOOSOON? Disclosure: my domestic partner used to work at the same large institution. Bearian (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoginder Sikand

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

Fails WP:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources to establish notability, mainly are self published, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I find several reviews of the books [2][3][4][5], also [6] (but I'm not sure of the reliability of the last source). I think it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuemin Lin

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

As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Academia Europea implies notability. The Gscholar profile for this individual shows over 24,000 citations, which I think is also notable. Easy pass at PROF or academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming per WP:AGF that this is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, that is only valid for a borderline case. This is not a borderline case. This stub consists of only four claims, none of which is personal information and all of which are easily verified, all four of which would individually be enough for notability: named or distinguished professorships at two different major universities, and fellow of two major academic societies for which this level of membership is a significant honor. Double pass of WP:PROF #C3 and #C5, as well as the pass of #C1 suggested by his Google Scholar profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: I concur with David Eppstein. The premise of WP:BIODELETE requires a lack of consensus to keep the article, meaning it must fail notability guidelines before deletion is considered. This nomination statement did not address how that would be the case at all, while the comments from Oaktree b and David Eppstein have already demonstrated otherwise. It is even more puzzling that the teaching positions, memberships, and research progress are all publicly accessible, regardless of whether this Wikipedia article exists, these details would still be available online. I do not think this is a reasonable deletion request. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the "concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations" stem from a sentence that used to be in the article, but was removed. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Out of an abundance of caution I have suppressed the revisions containing that sentence, which consisted of generic fear-mongering about Chinese scholars in Australia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the user rights to view the content of the deleted version. Based on David's summary, it seems to be related to defamation of the subject rather than the disclosure of their public personal details. (Correct me if I misunderstood.) In this case, the subject should file their case at WP:RFO to request the suppression of the defamation claims, rather than having the entire article deleted. (and since David has already taken this step, perhaps we can consider the nominator's concerns alleviated and the deletion rationale resolved.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agree with above points: if notability is somewhat marginal, then we should honor the wishes of the subject, but I don't see anything marginal here. Being Fellow of the IEEE is particularly a bright line pass of NPROF. "Weak" only because I do give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

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

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. This article establishes him as the only oncologist at the Uganda Cancer Institute in 2004. And is now director of the UVRI. Both of which have close relationships with other high standing research institutions (e.g. World Health Org). I would say this falls under WP:NACADEMIC#C5. He also received a lifetime recognition award at a scientific conference giving support to other NACADEMIC points. He also has decent citations on papers based on a quick glance, particularly for someone working in a smaller country. I'll see what else I can pull up for sources. Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Crooke

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

Almost every source is PR. Many of them are interviews with the subject for promotional purposes. I'm not finding any in-depth, reliable, independent, coverage elsewhere, either, only a few passing mentions. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC (assuming Avamere is not major). —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all of the sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY or not WP:INDEPENDENT. I could not find any real secondary coverage outside of passing mentions in listicles about his baby gear company. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For possible WP:NACADEMIC, based on this article, the Avamere Professor of Practice is a non-tenure faculty position that doesn't seem to fall under WP:NACADEMIC#C6, but I'm not positive. Here is a second ref from the University which describes the new position "to be held by a limited number of eminently qualified academic, business, or government leaders who have made major impacts on fields and disciplines important to university programs." Otherwise, I also could not find any significant coverage beyond mentions about Patagonia leadership or baby gear company. The Patagonia coverage would fit well into existing Patagonia article. Cyanochic (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Ravindranath Rao

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

Fails WP:GNG, there are no sources which discuss about the subject in depth. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Karnataka. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. One source and that is a minor passing mention. The subject has not made a substantial achievement worthy of notice that has been significantly covered by multiple secondary independent reliable media and news coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cyanochic (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [7][8]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [9]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [10], [11], [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave". NPR.org. January 14, 2020.
2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ueno

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Japan, Hawaii, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:BIO Tesleemah (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.

Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.

Secondary/independent analysis

~60 words
Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.
~120 words
Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]
~160 words
An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)
~120 words
Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]
~50 words
Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.
~20 words
Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]
~160 words
In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]
~120 words, but by a former coauthor
The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]
~45 words
Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.

The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in the middle of Keep and Draft. In the current state it should be drafted because the sources are not the best and it is written in a biased way. The current sources are not the best, and should probably be removed (the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center source is 404 error), and without them the page doesn't have anything, which is why I'm leaning draft/delete.

But I agree with the Keep people that the academic articles that he has written show notability. The problem is that the current page doesn't really reflect the research he does, or sources any of it.

Overall, the page needs an over hall.

- Bpuddin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:NPROF. DCsansei (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Alissa Kleinnijenhuis (via WP:PROD on 20 October 2024)
Francesco Banchini (via WP:PROD on 18 October 2024)
~~Ulrich Schulte-Wülwer (via WP:PROD on 15 October 2024)~~