Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hersh

:{{la|Peter Hersh}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hersh Stats])

:({{Find sources|Peter Hersh}})

Author/ subject COI based on username of OP Basket _Feudalist 08:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• keep, he seems to be a notable figure in opthalmology, with enough sources, articles and achievments to back it up --Rubyface (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "Author/ subject COI" is not a valid reason for deletion. The only reason for deleting this would be a failure to pass either the general criteria for notability or the specific ones for scientists and academics, and it may well fail. However Basket (aka You Can Act Like A Man), you were the one who approved this at AfC and moved it into article space. Surely, you must have seen that the article consisted almost entirely of primary sources (a fact which 3 separate editors had already commented on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Hersh&oldid=553090421]) and had not been improved at all since the last comment on 1 May 2013. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete from article space and userfy, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. (See below.) There are currently no reliable independent sources in the article which attest to the subject's notability under WP:PROF. None of the "awards" have verification, apart from his being elected a member of the American Ophthalmological Society. Note that the American Academy of Ophthalmology, to which virtually every American ophthamologist belongs, gives out a number of different kinds of "Honor Awards", which members can apply for themselves [http://www.aao.org/about/awards/index.cfm]. There is no verification that he has even received one of these, let alone which kind. The number of research papers is immaterial. What counts are commentary on and citation of these papers and his research by other academics in books or peer-reviewed journals. None has been provided. He is a clinical professor at the New Jersey Medical School, (normally not a senior, tenured position). Being a co-author of several textbooks, may count. I'll need to do more research on the degree to which they are widely used and reviewed. Note, though, that he a co-author of these books, rather than the sole author. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Please have a look below at his citation statistics, as gathered from WoS, an independent, highly regarded bibliometric database. Those statistics are impressive and furnish conclusive proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC).

• Keep with many thanks to Agricola44 and DGG for the citation info and interpretation. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Userfy I agree completely with Vocidetenore: the nom gives no valid reason for deletion. Nevertheless, this is quite a horrible article and far from what a biography should look like. (That incredibly long list of publications, for example, should be pared down to the three most notable ones). With az lot of work, this could perhaps turn into an encyclopedic article, but we're far from that at this point. --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Changed to Keep. Article needs significant amount of pruning and content needs to be checked given some COI editing (by an editor named "Phersh" and an IP tracing back to the institute founded by Hersh). --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question I need some advice before I rethink this. His combined library holdings figure on WorldCat is 514. Is that significant? Also, is there an easy but reliable way to determine his citation index? I find Google Scholar not a lot of help since most of the citations listed for each article are in other articles by the same author. Plus GS isn't comprehensive so it may be missing a lot. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the citations to his papers meet WP:PROF by showing him an authority: highest citation counts 234, 134, 117. Even in biomedical science, with high counts, 3 papers over 100 citation each is enough to show a persona ia an authority. If the textbooks are widely used, they counts also--all medical textbooks are produced by teams of editors, so coeditorship or co-authorship is significant. Ophthalmic surgical procedures is in 163 libraries, and has been translated into Japanese ({{ISBN|9784895920520}}) -- in general, only the most important textbooks are translated. I would have trimmed the publication list to make it an encyclopedia article, not a cv before accepting it, but its ok to fix it here also. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. WoS shows 105 papers with a citation list of: 172, 99, 83, ... (h-index 22), which is an obvious pass on WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC).
• Keep, of course. Basket _Feudalist 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.