Talk:Albert Folch Folch

(Am I supposed to leave my old talk edits or delete them? Please advise.)

Untitled
I'm still learning to use the Wikipedia tools. I see that "Fly by Night" deleted a bunch of stuff, most of which I agree: removal of "peacock words" ("vibrant"), "self-promotion" (well, I'm not promoting myself! -- but I do agree that I was putting inappropriate commercial links), and less notable awards.

But, surprisingly, "Fly by Night" is the one that *added* the notability and neutrality dispute tags. I understand the notability dispute tag (which I argued in my last talk), but didn't his edits take care of the neutrality issue? Anyways, I'm adding a few more deletions to "add neutrality": I just deleted the whole Background section (in case someone thought family background adds non-neutrality -- please advise, as I don't think so) and "The book received high praise [etc]". Hopefully that will take care of the neutrality issue too.

"Fly by Night" (if you read this) -- is this better now, could you please untag?

I see that someone deleted the notability dispute ... That's good. Obviously not everyone agrees with "Fly by Night" ... Well, maybe it's a borderline case, but Albert Folch also does very unique artistic work and that is what I want to make it more widely known in Wikipedia.

I really don't know who I am addressing to (Do you have art/science expertise -- what is the basis of stating that this needs to be "cleaned up"? I'm trying to learn myself and I'm not sure what needs to be "cleaned up"). Email would work much better (faster) ...

Thanks, whoever you are. At least the feedback is helping improve the article (which is the idea of Wikipedia, right?)

--Rogerfpurcell (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfpurcell (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) This page has been tagged for two reasons: 1) The neutrality is disputed. 2) The notability is disputed.

Re: 1) This is my first posting so I'm not an expert about encyclopedic writing -- it's possible I overdid my enthusiasm for Albert Folch's work, specially his artistic work (I'm an artist). After all, that is why I went through the effort of doing the work of posting his work here. Please feel free to tone down what needs to be tone down, whoever has criticized my lack of neutrality and is obviously a better expert -- or let me know what is wrong with my posting. "Neutrality is disputed" is not very helpful. Is the lack of neutrality claim related to the inclusion of family data? I was just trying to add color to the character, but I don't mind if it gets deleted or shortened. He provided the data, so he is obviously proud of his background, and I included it thinking that if someone is interested in Albert Folch, they might also be interested in where he comes from. (I personally enjoy knowing who the parents were, etc. ... I was amazed to learn that he had family ties to scientists like Jordi Folch Pi and Jordi Sabater Pi.)

Re: 2) I'm an artist and I think his mixture of art and science will endure (that's what he is a true pioneer in). I know he is well respected in his scientific community. If you go to list of microfluidics research groups (Wikipedia entry), you will see a few other scientists that are also in Wikipedia: George Whitesides (who appears to be the pope of the field, I was told), David Weitz, and John Wikswo. However, neither David Weitz nor John Wikswo are on the board of Lab on a Chip (the leading journal in this field -- George Whitesides, like Albert Folch, is). Albert Folch seems to have a similar publication record as these other people (comparing their webpages and considering he is 15/17 years younger than Weitz/Wikswo), if not better, although I'm not an expert at assessing science. What I believe is extraordinary about Albert Folch is his dual projection both as a scientist and an artist -- who do you know has these dual talents (or time for them) nowadays? In support of his notability, I should add that his fame (at least as an artist and writer) is fast-growing. I did contact him to get some of his scientific biographical information, which he provided to me by email (although it's mostly public information), along with his family background. He told me that he is preparing what will be the first major BioMEMS textbook, to be published by CRC Press (Taylor and Francis) in early 2011. Given the growth of the subject in classrooms everywhere, he says, he expects the textbook to immediately become the text of reference for students. I initially wrote that he was "preparing a textbook", but decided to leave it out of the final draft. As soon as the book is out, a book like that will surely add notability to the character. He is also preparing a photography book on the BAIT exhibits and an English translation of his book "The Science in Soccer", which should also be major publication hits. All these will be added gradually to the webpage as they become published.

So all in all, maybe the guy is not Einstein, but he is actually a true Renaissance guy that is doing great things in a variety of fields. We don't need to reward only the people that are super-great at just one thing. I hope you take the time to visit one of the BAIT exhibits and you'll see how exceptional they are: []

If I have convinced you -- Could you please un-tag the article from the notability dispute?

Thanks,

Roger. Rogerfpurcell (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Quite of a lot of the sources cited seem to be primary sources, self-published by Folch Folch himself. That's fine to a certain degree, but too many is not a good thing. A lot of the sources, like http://albertfolch.wix.com/introtobiomems just added with and the links to Amazon, YouTube, Picassa, Folch Folch's blog, etc. seem questionable per WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB; for example, the entire "Artistic activity" and  "Literary activity" sections are only supported by self-published sources. I think more eyes are needed to look through this and assess these sources, so I am going to post about it at WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CoverBioMEMS CRCPress HiRes.jpg (discussion)
 * Folch HiddenInPlainSight Cover Small.jpg (discussion)