Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Q. Wang (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Q. Wang

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

Previously kept in an AfD marked by lack of participation, then prodded, it is clear that a second AfD is required. An assistant prof, Wang has one review article with about 246 citations, but an h-index of 8 or 9. In my view, a multi-author, seven page long review article is insufficient to pass WP:PROF. Taking the terms "ultraviolet" and "melanoma" from the title of the article and doing a Google Scholar search, one finds other articles with 416, 389 and 272 citations. Searching by "melanoma" and "exposure" reveals articles with 281, 280, 259 and 256 citations. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted in the nom, the professor's publications and academic achievement does not yet satisfy WP:PROF. He does get a few Google News Archive hits, but the stories only mention him and do not satisfy WP:BASIC, nor do any other RSs I can find. Novaseminary (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll repeat my comments from the previous discussion (which was closed as Keep, not No Consensus, with two !votes for keep and none but the nominator's for delete). As I pointed out previously, Sloan-Kettering is one of the top half-dozen cancer hospitals in the country. Someone who is head of a department there is almost by definition a thought leader in the field. (The fact that he is only an assistant professor at Cornell reflects the fact that he is primarily a clinician who also teaches classes at Cornell - he is not full-time Cornell faculty. Well-known clinicians often do this, and in fact it is an honor to be invited to serve as a "clinical professor".) He has numerous hits [1] at Google Scholar, which are heavily cited by others. PubMed is harder to evaluate since there appear to be multiple authors named Wang SQ, but many are by him. He also writes for popular consumption. [2] --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But unlike WP:PROF which would mean most academic department heads would be notable, what guideline would this meet? Or do you think he actually meets WP:PROF? Or do you know of RSs that would get him over WP:BASIC? (Are there no notable doctor almanacs or the like?) Or do you think he meets WP:AUTHOR because of his poupular writing? Wonderful clinician or not, I don't see a single guideline he meets. And, by the way, I completely agree with the discussion in the last AfD regarding the over-inclusion of athletes and some others. But of course, lowering the standard for practicing doctors will do nothing to raise the standard for atheletes. And, because of WP:BASIC, a huge number of the athlete articles are not included only based on inherent notability of WP:ATHLETE. Perhaps we should raise the standards of WP:ATHLETE and make WP:BASIC inapplicable to people only covered for sport-related news coverage, but again, this is not the place for building that consensus... Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Someone who is head of a department there is almost by definition a thought leader in the field" is not good enough. Notability is not inherited, and we need direct evidence that he himself is notable. I am not convinced that all heads of departments there are "thought leader", but if it is true then you should be able to show sources to indicate the fact, not just rely on such vague unsubstantiated wording as "almost by definition". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Multiple reliable sources appear to cover this gentleman's research [3][4]. Therefore meets WP:BASIC. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage a journal article is not the same as covering him. BASIC requires the person be the subject (or a subject) of the coverage. These sources mention him trivially. If coverage of a particular journal article met BASIC, each of the co-authors would also meet BASIC even though they were not even mentioned in the coverage at all. And one of the sources was a reprint of the journal publisher's press release. Novaseminary (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was wondering about that (one of the sites seemed a little press-releasey). Given that the article is only a reprint of a press release, I don't see enough notability here to keep. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a nice fellow in an important position that should probably be noted on the pages for his organizations but I don't see it meeting the criteria here. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (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.