Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Yaremchuk

[edit]
Michael J. Yaremchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fulfill a single criterion of WP:NACADEMICS. No coverage in independent sources. kashmiri TALK 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Being listed on Google Scholar is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability, neither is authoring academic papers (do you know that there are more than TEN THOUSAND academic papers published every single day?[1]) Nor even being a professor - Wikipedia is not a directory of professors. Why don't you read WP:NACADEMICS and argue based on official Wikipedia rules? kashmiri TALK 16:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: without needing to spend a lot of time on this, I note that he fulfils C5 of WP:NACADEMICS and likely fulfils C1 (has lots of published papers, which seem genuinely to have a fairly large number of citations). The page seems to be overly promotional and maybe even copied from his website, but I can't see much doubting that he is a notable academic. JMWt (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Does NOT fulfil C5 (he is neither a distinguished professor nor a named chair) or C1 (no independent reliable sources on the person are quoted). kashmiri TALK 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The list of publications was added to the profile. A lot of them were published in the National Center for Biotechnology which is a government organization. I strongly disagree with the comment on the absence of independent sources. There are sources from Boston Globe, Huffington post, Harper's Bazaar, Boston Magazine and others. Those are some of the largest regional and national publications Dan Z-V 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep probably falls just the right side of notability, but the article seemed very much an advertisement for his services. I have toned down the promotionalism - no one needs to care about his private practice office address, what he does in his private practice, or what his licenses are, they are irrelevant to his only claim to notability which is his academic work. Putting that crap back in would seem to be a concession that his academic work is inadequate to establish notability, which would mean a delete - let's hope the article's promoters understand that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Best Doctors in America" [2] is a sham, I'm afraid. Investigation They list thousands of doctors who are solicited to send in information, then use the "award" to advertise themselves. It's paid for by hospitals, as I am able to understand, who subscribe to it and then can use the accolade in their advertising. e.g.. I'm going to assume that all doctors understand what this is about, and that it exists for promotional purposes. Therefore, seeing it in a WP article, to me, smacks of promotion. YMMV. LaMona (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim. He's notable- based on the citation record, wghichproves him an authority in his field: 332, 257, 256, 237, 229, 231, 217, 225, .... Chief of Craniofacial Surgery at MGH is a very high level position; Clinical professor is not quite the same as Professor, but at Harvard Med, it means more than it might elsewhere. However, and its a big however, the article is promotional -- Best Doctors in America is indeed pretty close to meaningless, the contents listing his various keynote speeches is not really encyclopedic content, and since WP is not a place for academic CVs, we do not include full lists of published article--only the top 5 or 10 so, going by the citations . The intent is probably promotional -- I'm frankly extremely skeptical about the advertising purposes of articles on plastic surgeons--but he's notable enough to be worth fixing the article--something I rarely say nowadays about promotional articles. But the argument for deletion, which should have focussed on that, instead makes rather absurd claims about lack of notability. (If this is by some chance a COI article, it shows the usual deficiencies of COI editing, not knowing. what to include or exclude. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Just for future reference, are you saying that would or would not meet C5 of WP:NACADEMICS? I may have misunderstood what is considered to be a "distinguished chair". I agree with all the other comments about the promotional nature, the faux awards and other crap on page. The fact is, though, he has a position at a top medical school and has a lot of well cited papers, which should surely be good enough. JMWt (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a distinguished chair means something like "The John Jones Professor of Surgery at ... ", These endowed chairs are a rank normally given to the most distinguished of the full professors and are considered a sufficient proof of notability. Merely being a faculty member at Harvard is not necessarily notable. Being a full professor at Harvard is not technically one the factors that make for automatic notability, is a position of sufficient rank that I have never seen one not considered as notable. Harvard and similar universities are a much better judge of notability than we are, and they never give full professor rank to someone who is not a major leader in their subject. (Personally, I thin we might asc well simply say so in the guideline, but at the present consensus ifs to require the additional evidence of status as an expert, which for a scientific researcher, is proven by the citations to their works.)
As for the promotional nonsense, I have just rewritten the article to remove it, and to add such things as his basic biographical data, which the editor didn't realize was relevant to an encycopedia. My experience--and that of all other editors here who work with promotional articles-- is that it is extremely difficult to persuade promotional editors to write in an encyclopedic manner; they have their own style and their own purposes, which are not compatible with ours'. This gives us a choice: either rewrite their articles and do their work for them, or reject the articles. I like many of us used to routinely rewrite when there was notability, until I like many of us got exasperated by the need to do good work for free, for which others were getting the money to do poorly. I will now do such a rewrite only under exceptional cases, though some of my colleagues are still trying to rewrite them all. (the exceptional circumstances here are first, that he is really highly notable, and second, that the article was irrationally attacked. Were I to !vote to delete it, I'd be endorsing that attack. DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - I think it would not be unreasonable to remove the long list of publications, given that the "most cited" are already there. And to fix some of the citations. Feel free to revert me if you think this goes too far. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, DGG, good that you did the work, see your point, especially that I believe one of the contributors here is actually paid to promote the said doctor over the Internet. Still, being professionally linked to the medical field I can't really imagine that speaking at three conferences is worth mentioning at all. I know dozens of professors, world-class experts in their field (neurology), who routinely speak at at least 3-4 congresses every year, and this fact being part of normal academic routine is not really something to be proud of! They of course do not yet fulfil WP:ACADEMICS so they don't have their acrticles on WP. Here, someone has spoken at three congresses in his/her career and has it in the encyclopaedia. Are we serious? Or this is just a poor attempt to lure patients to a private practice, as apparently was the original aim of this article?
I have taken a look at the page of Harward Medical School and the only mention of Dr Yaremchuk is that he is a part-time professor of surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital, along with nearly 6,975 other teaching and research staff.[3] I don't believe Wikipedia's aim to be a directory of all professors even at the General Hospital in Massachusetts and for this reason the bar for WP:NACADEMICS has been set much higher. No idea why you call this "irrational".
Your edits, although helpful, at the end could not make this dr notable. kashmiri TALK 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I differentiate the rank Chief of Craniofacial Surgery from the " 6,975 other teaching and research staff." I'm not going to comment on your editing, except for restoring a few points. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose every department/unit in any hospital in the world has its chief, and working in this capacity alone does not confer notability for an encyclopaedia. Even being head of department at a government ministry is normally not sufficient per WP:POLITICIAN, even less being a head of unit at a local hospital. 257 citations for a 38 years old review article is nothing unusual in medicine. Regards, kashmiri TALK 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disingenuous. It's easy to say "every department/unit in any hospital in the world has its chief, and working in this capacity alone does not confer notability", but you know perfectly well that we're discussing a hospital which "conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the world, with an annual research budget of more than $750 million [and] is currently ranked as the #1 hospital in the United States by U.S. News & World Report".[4] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And? How does this override WP:NACADEMICS? This is an article not about the hospital but about a doctor. And keep further personal comments to yourself. kashmiri TALK 23:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_J._Yaremchuk&oldid=1139213831"