Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Goldberg (surgeon)

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. A very clear consensus to keep now. Tone 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Goldberg (surgeon)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am unable to find sources to demonstrate that WP:BIO is met and with an h index of 10, it seems unlikely that WP:PROF is met either. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a low coverage for his work does not lead to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was awarded an OBE in 2011 for services for medicine so I would assume passes criteria 2 of notability of academics: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." He also founded the Medical Futures Innovation Awards, "Europe’s leading showcase of early-stage innovation in healthcare", eg see [1]https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2011/smd/queen-mary-research-team-wins-medical-futures-award-2011.html Piecesofuk (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Is receiving an OBE an automatic pass? An OBE is not at all similar to the types of awards listed in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes. Founding an award scheme has no impact on notability. SmartSE (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Actually, the OBE would be covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. However, we have generally held that an OBE is not enough to satisfy that criterion (although the next higher level, the CBE, would be). It is a major contributing factor to notability, but does not confer notability on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with OP MaskedSinger (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The h-index cited @Johnpacklambert: seems to only have a fraction of his publications. This GoogleScholar page suggests an h index of 19 and citations of more than 2000 with rapid trajectory. He is a respected author [2] [3] and sits on editorial committees [4] [5] and his research including a publication in Nature Scientific Reports e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57912-z meets the Wiki Notability for academics. The most recent Nature publication was only published in 2020 and takes time to receive citations [6] 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — SnowmedGT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability either under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Most of the current sources are passing mentions, name checks and thus don't confer notability. GSS ^💬 07:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets Notability under WP:PROF AND WP:BIO. He is a Professor at UCL [7][8]. He has published more than 70 publications with over 2400 citations [9]. He sits on national committees such as the UK National Joint Registry [10] and is Chief Investigator on a NIHR study receiving public funding of £1.5 million [11]. He has published several textbooks [12]. He was awarded an OBE for services to Medicine [13]. These are not passing mentions nor name checks as stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Speccledct (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Speccledct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Speccledct: You have not explained why you think PROF or BIO are met. Being a professor and publishing articles and books is not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: The first criteria for WP:PROF is that the person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. I cannot find many orthopaedic surgeons anywhere in the world that were awarded £1,505,666.72 to be a chief investigator in a national research study [14]. He appears to have made a significant impact on researching ankle arthritis [15][16]. He was invited as a guest speaker at the Canadian American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society [17], the British Orthopaedic Association [18] and his research is nominated for the Roger Mann Award at the American Orthopaedic Society [19] which all seem to be reliable sources. With regards WP:BIO the first criteria is having received a well recognised and significant honour - He received an OBE [20]. I cannot see anywhere is WP:BIO it stating that an MBE or OBE is not a well recognised nor a significant honour. Adele received an MBE [21] and Victoria Beckham an OBE [22]. Incidentally on the WP:BIO page under the heading for Academics it states that “Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”. His papers have been cited thousands of times by other researchers [23] and so are influential. SpeccledCT (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN spamcruft; also wholly endorse GSS's analysis. ——Serial 17:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this. Originally, my closure was keep since I have a feeling that WP:PROF has chances of getting through, but I'd prefer seeing some more input. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Several comments here are not objective and some unnecessarily offensive. He meets Notability under WP:PROF with very clear examples given that meet majority of criteria and agree with @Piecesofuk: seems to meet WP:BIO. SnowmedGT (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. You can't !vote twice. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the bare minimum citations to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC for his field [24]. Sum this up with Most Excellent Order of the British Empire award and I believe it is decent keep. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, thanks XOR'easter for listing this under the academics deletion discussion today. Kindly requesting more relists so that people that are active in this sorting list have time to check this out and cast their opinions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A distinguished author, professor, researcher, surgeon and scholar, right? When we routinely keep subjects such as this, for people who just kick a ball, the notability guidelines are clearly inconsistent and lack sense and so we should ignore them and follow policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew above makes an excellent point – we should delete more articles about people who merely kick a ball! Order of the British Empire does NOT bestow notability and such argument above should be disregarded: well over 200 UK people received it in 2011 alone, few of which are WP notable. Goldberg has an excellent resume but sources are basically all non-independent or passing mentions, failing GNG. Apparent undisclosed paid spam. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for invite to comment. Kicks more than a ball. Meets WP:PROF. If criteria for WP:PROF needs changing then change but you cannot change interpretation. Paper in Nature [25] is impressive and lots of the references are independant eg receiving a public grant from the NHS [26] . MAF1966 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2020 (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.