Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bui

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 of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 06:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bui[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability, and appears to be likely a vanity page. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Agreed. Delete Kittybrewster 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a notable scientist. 68.71.27.1 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? If he's notable, the notability should be shown. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was looking for my son's doctor and when I found him here it was very helpful. He's a gifted doctor - keep. 71.134.6.105 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "gifted doctor," even if true, is insufficient for Wikipedia's general consensus on notability. Please explain why he should be considered sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page after hearing him talk about his research on stroke MRI because it was an important topic and he was impressive. 134.174.120.66 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? Again, "being impressive" is not a notability criterion. He can be the most intelligent person in the world; until he does something that makes him notable, that still wouldn't warrant an article. --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-O bli (Talk)^? 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "Jonathan Bui" gets 125 Google hits none of which appear to indicate notability as a doctor see [1].Capitalistroadster 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Learn to use the right google search. Google Scholar indicates that he is a co-author or cited in about 71 papers. Peter Mansfield, who won a nobel prize for MRI, gets about 135. KWH 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does little to assert notability, and Google definitely doesn't help his cause. -- Kicking222 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Hetar 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.--Andrew c 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Dawson 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar indicates he is cited in 71 papers. I would urge that some of the other Keep votes who are familiar with his work might expand on the article to further demonstrate his notability. KWH 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these citations to "JD Bui" are not to this person. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "Jonathan D. Bui" leads to nine papers.[2] I am looking over them right now to see if they're the same person. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight of them appears to have his name on them. I was unable to verify one other since the link leads to the wrong page. --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the ones that the Google Scholar search comes up with the search string "JD Bui" don't seem to contain that name at all; it's not just that it's the wrong J.D. Bui, but appear to be complete false positives. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way your search is structured, there are way too many false positives. One of them that I was finally able to track down, [3], for example, had an co-author named "JD" and an co-author named "Bui." Our hero here is definitely not involved in 71 papers. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad that my note caused you to do some actual research on the notability, but I would assert that all you've managed to confirm here is that according to limited online sources, the individual has contributed to at least 9 papers. (actually, according to this link in the article, 14 papers.) I do note the fact that this is the only article edited by the originator of this article. We're talking about a clinical fellow at Harvard who's published, I'd rather hear someone with expertise in the field say if he's made lasting contributions (as some of the above Keep votes seem to say). Why are you so eager to delete? KWH 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the keep IP comments were going, one can easily draw the conclusion that this was a vanity page as well. If I were "so eager to delete" the page, I would have speedy deleted it as non-notable. As it stands, I'm looking for debate, not for unsupported and unverified claims of "but he's a great doctor!" or "he's a great scholar!" If there's verifiable information that he's notable, fine, but these comments are not verifications of his notability. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to give the best good faith to the article creator and other keep votes who claim to be familiar with his work, and they do need to be clearer on asserting notability... but it does seem to be a slightly different case from the average "nn-band". KWH 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nlu's research. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Apr. 22, '06 [11:42] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete ccwaters 12:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with KWH. Talk:Jonathan Bui --User:Electric Eye (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, publications are to academics what speeches are to politicians. If he has written 14 articles, thats a sign of low notability. On this count, you could include most PhDs in the world. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn bio. Deizio 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, non notable biography Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being not notable. If he is, someone should provide some evidence. Tuf-Kat 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability --Ajdz 01:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. The article says "He exists. He is a doctor and a scientist." Those voting keep also note "He does good stuff." How is this person any more notable than the thousands of people you could say the same for? The article sure doesn't make a case for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom, not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs)
Delete Not notable and to a lesser degree, a vanity page.--Cini 09:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (almost) no sign of notability in the article, and agree that 9 (or even 71) papers would not be notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently NN. Startup account 20:26, 26 April 2006 (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.