Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Arguello
- 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 13:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Frank Arguello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Currently unsourced BLP. Looking around, I can't see much evidence of coverage - a couple of secondary sources turned up, but not ones which with compliant with BLP. His publications do not seem to be of the level to pass WP:ACADEMIC. - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- comment his citations are around 1200 with a h-index of 11 in GS, so nothing really spectacular but we have kept people with much lower citations in biomedicine recently. He has three first author papers in strong journals with 100+ citations each, about what to expect for a "typical" assistant professor at his career stage. However, all his impactful work is 30 years old and in 2020 he only got a total of 28 citations which does not really indicate a strong endorsement of his work and concepts in the field. Furthermore, the article was created by a WP:SPA, probably the subject himself. PS: this is also consistent with the fact that his theory of "Atavistic metamorphosis" is not picked up at all in any scientific discourse, as indicated by only 4 citations of the book. --hroest 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Cancer genetics is a high-citation field, so it is surprising someone who has been publishing in it for 30 years hasn't accrued much higher metrics. With a paper cutoff of 5 (which is absurdly low), here is my Scopus analysis of Dr. Arguello and his 21 coauthors + the 185 coauthors of his 3 most frequent collaborators' most recent coauthors:
- Total citations: average: 7145, median: 2596, Arguello: 810.
- Total papers: avg: 127, med: 78, A: 11.
- h-index: avg: 35, med: 28, A: 9.
- Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 648, med: 323, A: 299. 2nd: avg: 394, med 201, A: 226. 3rd: avg: 313, med: 159, A: 134. 4th: avg: 261, med: 140, A: 43. 5th: avg: 223, med: 121, A: 25.
- JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 21 coauthors + the 185 coauthors of his 3 most frequent collaborators' most recent coauthors wow, nice work JoelleJay you are really expanding the scope of this :-). --hroest 13:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Among those coauthors was the highest h-index I've come across in these analyses: Elaine Jaffe, at 151! This AfD also netted another 12 highly-cited scientists for my notable women list. JoelleJay (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay Haha, yes they can get quite high. In my field there are 3 people with h-index > 200 [1] and apparently Ronald C Kessler just pushed 300 in GS (227 in Scopus), in total there are over 80 people with a h-index > 200 in the world right now: [2]. Some of these are literally unbelievable (in the sense hard to believe), this guy has 1800 publications cited more than 10 times. I have now created User:Hannes Röst/H100 based on this list, sounds like everbody on that list should probably have an article in Wikipedia. Its also a good list to use in AfD is somebody asks what article would be notable and suitable for creation instead of a low-impact person in the field. Obviously based on Google Scholar so its a bit more shaky but generally the order should be fine. Definitely puts my own h-index into perspective... --hroest 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- hroest If you want I can look through the people on your list and add their Scopus metrics. I've also got like 3700 people in my spreadsheets from these AfD author comparisons -- I just sorted them by h-index and there are 36 above 100. On the other hand, fields like particle physics and clinical genetics have ridiculous citation rates that might even make indices of 100+ too low a bar -- for example, I thought the physicist Claudia Patrignani would be a slam dunk entry on my list due to her 95k citations and index of 107. But then she's just an assistant professor, with 42k citations straight from 9 of the annual 200+-author Particle Data Group "Review of Particle Physics" papers. And almost all the other citations are from middle authorship on other consortium publications (like this one, with over 800 collaborators). She might still be a highly-regarded and influential scholar, but it's hard to reconcile that with her assistant professorship and her authorship position on these huge papers (although she was first-author on one of the RPP articles). Also, is any and every person on these papers actually notable? How much did each author really contribute...? JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay honestly, I dont know how high energy physics attributions really work but here clearly our WP:NPROF is failing because "high citations" for C1 is not applicable. Maybe someone with experience in the field can explain this? As far as I understand, on these types of papers really just about every postdoc and grad student who contributed to the experiment over a time span of 10,20 or 30 years is a co-author. I dont know how to deal with this except maybe divide citations up by the number of authors on a paper? There are some efforts to actually describe which author did what and many journals now require this in free text form, but I dont think anything machine readable is available. --hroest 19:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- hroest If you want I can look through the people on your list and add their Scopus metrics. I've also got like 3700 people in my spreadsheets from these AfD author comparisons -- I just sorted them by h-index and there are 36 above 100. On the other hand, fields like particle physics and clinical genetics have ridiculous citation rates that might even make indices of 100+ too low a bar -- for example, I thought the physicist Claudia Patrignani would be a slam dunk entry on my list due to her 95k citations and index of 107. But then she's just an assistant professor, with 42k citations straight from 9 of the annual 200+-author Particle Data Group "Review of Particle Physics" papers. And almost all the other citations are from middle authorship on other consortium publications (like this one, with over 800 collaborators). She might still be a highly-regarded and influential scholar, but it's hard to reconcile that with her assistant professorship and her authorship position on these huge papers (although she was first-author on one of the RPP articles). Also, is any and every person on these papers actually notable? How much did each author really contribute...? JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay Haha, yes they can get quite high. In my field there are 3 people with h-index > 200 [1] and apparently Ronald C Kessler just pushed 300 in GS (227 in Scopus), in total there are over 80 people with a h-index > 200 in the world right now: [2]. Some of these are literally unbelievable (in the sense hard to believe), this guy has 1800 publications cited more than 10 times. I have now created User:Hannes Röst/H100 based on this list, sounds like everbody on that list should probably have an article in Wikipedia. Its also a good list to use in AfD is somebody asks what article would be notable and suitable for creation instead of a low-impact person in the field. Obviously based on Google Scholar so its a bit more shaky but generally the order should be fine. Definitely puts my own h-index into perspective... --hroest 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Among those coauthors was the highest h-index I've come across in these analyses: Elaine Jaffe, at 151! This AfD also netted another 12 highly-cited scientists for my notable women list. JoelleJay (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- 21 coauthors + the 185 coauthors of his 3 most frequent collaborators' most recent coauthors wow, nice work JoelleJay you are really expanding the scope of this :-). --hroest 13:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. low citations, low impact on the field in general and the person does not even seem to be active in research any more. --hroest 13:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I do not think anyone would argue he is one of the lead contributors to his field of study broadly defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Low impact so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2021 (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.