Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Mahipal (physician)

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. There seems to be a consensus here that he fails the WP:PROF guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Mahipal (physician)[edit]

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

Can we check whether this meets WP:PROF? It's not obvious that it might. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF: he's not a full professor; his role at the Moffitt Cancer Centre is senior but not top-level (as H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute will show). Google Scholar returns few citations (3 co-authored papers with more than 10 cites). Google news search has him quoted a few times but no in-depth coverage of his own work. Regular Google search doesn't give much in the way of third-party coverage. I'm not an expert in medicine, but right now I can't see grounds for calling him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per TOOSOON. He has the career track to likely be notable someday, but given the rank and years out of med school, needs a high level of external validation of notability, and it's not there yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for raising this concern. I am the originator of this article, Jcmeberhard (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC). I study Medical sociology and evidenced based practice, and work with researchers and physicians on a weekly basis. Thus, although I am not a physician, my writing for Wikipedia is done with an audience of medical professionals and students in mind who would be searching for encyclopedic information on significant topics, clinical studies, and notable persons in their field. Mahipal fits this criteria (and Wikipedia's criteria) because he has conducted major clinical studies recognized as significant within medicine.[reply]

Amit Mahipal meets the notability criteria on several grounds. I will use the WP:PROF guidelines to make this argument, however I would like to point out that while the acronym for the WP notability page being referenced is "PROF", the actual name and purpose of this list of criteria is for "Academics"--which includes anyone who does research in a specific field of scientific or artistic inquiry--one does not need to be a "professor" to fit into this category of notable persons.

Doctor Mahipal is not a professor; He is the head of Clinical Research at Moffitt Cancer Center and a physician, who only serves as an assistant at the near by University. Even so, I believe that the WP:PROF criteria are the only notable persons criteria that fit professional researchers, as there are no criteria for medical notable persons specifically.

According to WP:PROF the person must meet one of nine criteria, of which, Dr. Mahipal meets the following:

1)The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources....if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.

I have made substantial revisions to Dr. Mahipal's article in order to better support the significance of his work via bibliographic references. I would be grateful if those participating in this discussion would take the time to read the first few paragraphs of the "Research" section of the article, with these changes. Hopefully, by including more contextual information about the medical discussion surrounding Mahipal's studies, the article will prove more useful to the broader Wikipedia community and incoming medical professionals.

While I realize that Google Scholar and news searches are the most accessible tools to the public for checking citations, as WP:PROF itself warns, these are not accurate tools for measuring the impact or index of academic articles. Both Web of Science and Scopus searches (listed/suggested by WP:PROF) will show that Dr. Mahipal is widely cited in the areas discussed in the article. I provided citations for these databases in my revisions to the article, and all the new citations I include themselves cite Dr. Mahipal's work. Also note that the citations I provide are only a handful of the dozens which cite him. If you were to ask a medical student or resident about lymph node biopsies, they would be able to tell you about the topic, and the role which researchers like Mahipal played in the recent rejection of lymphodectomies as a clinical practice. Mahipal's study, which was focused on the unnecessary morbidity of lymph node dissections, is cited consistently in every literature review on this topic (several of which I added as bibliographic references to the article). This is true, not only for his work in Lymph Node dissection, but also his study regarding the role of NSAIDs in cancer prevention, and biomarkers for cancer treatment.

Due to these realities, I believe that Dr. Mahipal fits the description provided on WP:PROF of someone who is widely recognized for his role in the pioneering and discovery of several significant ontological practices, reflected in the impact factor of the journals he has published in and the number of times his he is cited in key discussions and debates about medical standards. If there is any further information I can/need to provide to substantiate these claims, I would be happy to make the attempt.

Delete. A few cites found on GS but not enough for WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete article does not make the case for WP:PROF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2013 (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.