Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)[edit]

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

This is a promotional article created for the purpose of advertising Biorébus, a commercial venture headed by Dr. Schwartz. Creator of the article is a special purpose account (User:Ludivine1989) whose edits are confined to Laurent Schwartz and Biorébus, and to uploading a photo for Schwartz and the corporate logo, the latter of which he identified as "own work," indicating that he is associated with Biorébus[1]. This account created two articles on this person. The other is Laurent Henri Schwartz, which I redirected to this one. Ludivine1989's other creation Biorébus also was redirected to this article following a speedy deletion request. This article relies upon primary sources and original research provided by the subject. The only secondary sources are two brief stories in French publications that do not substantiate the extravagant claims made in this article. The section of this article on Biorébus is especially objectionable, as it is an advertisement for this non-notable venture. Clearly this and the other two Ludivine1989 articles were created by Dr. Schwartz or parties related to him as promotions, and not as arms-length creations of editors uninvolved with the subject, further casting doubt on the notability of the subject. Note to closing administrator: If this article is deleted, deletion is also necessary for Laurent Henri Schwartz, and for Biorébus. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC) (nomination revised at 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

?. Would the nominator like to tell us what he found on Google scholar that might be relevant to WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I found a lack of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You did not look hard enough then. I found on GS cites of 668, 145, 139, 137, 105..... to give an h-index of around 20 (being careful not to count those of the algebraist). This should just give a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited field. Connection with Biorébus may add to notability under WP:Prof#C7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The h-index is a "rough guide" of notability in the guideline, not definitive, and how does it address the "major achievements" stated in the article? Without them I don't see Dr. Schwartz's notability. I do not believe that the connection with the non-notable Biorébus adds one wit to notability. Prof#C7 is for "substantial impact outside academia." Biorébus clearly does not fit such criteria. Here is the promotional article on that company, created by the same obvious COI account who created the Schwartz article, before it was redirected. The same account that created the article uploaded the corporate logo and claimed copyright ownership thereof.[2] Notice that the Biorébus article contains the same extravagant claims that were made concerning Dr. Schwartz. It is inconceivable that this article or the Biorébus article would have been created by anyone other than the subject of the article or someone closely associated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is advised to develop a more thorough understanding of the WP:Prof guidelines and study past precedents in academic AfDs before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I see from your talk page that your "advice" concerning h-indexes has only recently been disputed. I think that you rely on it excessively, and that in this instance it confers notability on a person who is not deserving thereof. As the guideline states, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." My advice is that you not advise other people on this issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of effort is made here to show that the article was created by sombody with a COI. Howevern whether this is an autobio or not, or whether it was created by someone with another type of COI or not, or whether the article is POV or not is absolutely immaterial to this discussion. What needs to b decided here is whether there is any notability or not. All else is a metter for cleanup and editing, not AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only realized that there was a COI after I nominated this for deletion. Hence my revisions. I strongly disagree that COI is immaterial. This article, created by a person who has declared himself associated with Biorebus (he created the logo), makes extravagant claims that no neutral editor would make about the subject of the article. Those claims are the basis of the asserted notability. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my point. COI and POV are reasons for cleanup. Lack of notability is a reason for deletion. COI/POV does not show something is not notable, just as absence of COI and being written neutrally does not mean that something is notable. Two very different problems that are very much independent and have very different solutions. Of course, that doesn't mean one cannot have both COI and a lack of notability, just as you can have a lack of COI and clear notability. Any combination is possible, which is exactly what "independent" means. --Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand the distinction. However, as you know, when promotional articles are nominated for deletion - and I am sure you'd agree this is a promotional article - the COI/SPA character of the creator is frequently if not invariably noted in the nomination. Here is one example,[3] chosen at random. I became aware of this article purely by accident, and originally my only interest was in merging two articles on the same subject. Then I noticed that the target article was based on primary sources and made extravagant unsupported claims. Only after that did I notice the COI issues here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but mentioning it is one thing. Putting in a lot of effort and keep going on about it is another. Drop it, it's irrelevant here. Also, please be aware that trying to out and editor is heavily frowned upon (to say the least). --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "outing" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm only "going on" about it because you brought it up. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the citation data given by Xxanthippe. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the citation data, there is a lack of independent, reliable secondary sources that I think we need, and are encouraged by WP:PROF, to determine if this person warrants an article. Two secondary sources are listed, but they fail provide sufficient depth of detail to support the notability of this person, or indicate that his research stands out from the pack. They are utiized to support the Biorebus section, but do not mention the company. I agree that the article is promotional in tone, that it stretches the facts to the breaking point ("Major achievements" should be "Areas of research") and that yes, the COI doesn't help one bit. Alleged and unsourced relationship to famous mathematician of the same name is inconsequential. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Coretheapple on all points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the advertising is removable. Section 1 has to be written as "his current work is directed towards the hypotheses that ... " And I disagree completely that secondary sources are necessary for WP:PROF besides the GNG--they're encouraged, hey should certainly be added if available, but all that is necessary to do is to show that the person meets any of the requirements of the PROF guideline from any reliable source. Which is exactly what the guideline says RS for the GNG is an alternative option only, and in fact where we usually have debates is where the ordinary requirements of the WP:PROF guideline are not met, but there happens to be newspaper coverage from a human interest angle (e.g, "what an unusual accomplishment for a high school student"--afd results in such cases value--I personally usually discount such stories as essentially TABLOID. The key WP:PROF guideline here is being accepted as an authority by people in his field. This is normally shown by citations, because that's essentially what being an authority means in the academic world: important work is cited, unimportant work is not. (& important enough work leads to prizes and academy memberships and distinguished chairs and the other possible WP:PROF guidelines, which are really there just to simplify our evaluations).

Citations cannot however be take at face value--they mean different things in different fields, and can mean different things with respect to individual articles. Analyzing the highly cited papers (and separating them from the extremely highly cited papers of his relative, a very notable mathematician): The highly cited papers are from around 1990, and are what appears to be perfect orthodox studies, published mostly in the two most important journals in the field. He's either first or last author of almost all of them, so they were his large part his project (or as a major contributor to the statistical analysis). I consider them sufficient to establish him as an authority in that branch of the subject. The work is not really related to the "accomplishments" in section 1, which are none of them highly cited, and all of them published in minor or relatively minor journals. What I think we have is the rather familiar case of a normal scientist who in the later part of their career develops unorthodox views. The articles usually attract interest at afd because of the unorthodox views, and, to be fair, the manner in which they are presented. Rejecting these articles amounts to bias on our part. Fortunately, for WP:PROF we have an objective guideline, which we should follow. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is correct. If the two deletes above wish to challenge the applicability of the WP:Prof guidelines to research BLPs they should do so on the talk page of WP:Prof and not in individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the hype and advertising are removable, and when removed you are left with nothing, just some unverifiable personal information, a couple of sketchy news clips, and some primary sources that may or may not indicate that this person is a suitable subject for an article. WP:PROF specifically deals with situations like this, by encouraging us to wait for the person to be written about: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I came here from a COI report. I'm not reading the rest of this AfD until after !voting to try and remain neutral. I'm sure the AfD has also mentioned the COI and POV content but I'm going to ignore those issues for the time being and focus on notability. WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROF look to be the only portions of WP:N that the subject may satisfy, unless a significant portion of his life has been omitted from the WP article.

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. I found no significant and independent coverage from reliable sources in a Google News search. Apparently Google News Archive searches have been removed so I did this Google search of scanned newspapers, ignoring articles about the mathematician. The search produced no useful articles (unless Laurent Schwartz time traveled and had a 19 year old son that was kidnapped in 1962). Distractions aside, I could find no instances of independent and significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

Fails WP:ANYBIO. I can find no evidence of having won a major award but if he's won an award in his field, I'm sure he would satisfy WP:PROF. Subject may satisfy point 2 of ANYBIO but that would also satisfy WP:PROF which I'll get to soon.

It's hard for me to asses WP:AUTHOR in this case. I'm not an expert so I can't say whether or not he's satisfied point 2 (known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique). Fails points 3 and 4 but may satisfy point 1. If he satisfies point 1 or 2, he would presumably satisfy WP:PROF.

Appears to satisfy WP:PROF. I tread lightly because I don't pretend to know much about his field of study and how his work has affected his field. I searched Google Scholar for his work but limited the search to 1978+ to try and eliminate some crossover with Laurent Schwartz, the mathematician. this work has been cited 669 times, according to Google Scholar. This work is also listed in the article as a major achievement, and based on my understanding which is admittedly limited, that seems like a significant achievement that would satisfy point one of WP:PROF, points 1 and 2 of WP:AUTHOR, and point 2 of WP:ANYBIO.

If an expert in oncology were to come to this AfD and suggest that this achievement is less than significant, I might change my mind. Until then, this person does seem notable to me. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, which he appears to meet. While a COI makes me look more closely and skeptically at a new BLP, it does not require deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (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.