Talk:Derek M. Yellon

Edit request
I would like to update the page from the previous version to the updated one I posted earlier this year. It was rejected but I don't understand why, the information is supported. Grateful for any help.ProfYellon (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 10-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  12:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Kindly provide a WP:DIFF of the edits along with the reasoning for their implementation.
 * 2) When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!

edit request
Thank you for this information. What I'm trying to do is remove the previous text entirely and replace with refreshed and more robust information and references. This has required a complete revision of the text rather than small edits here and there - we re-structured the information in a more organised manner. Is this possible or are edits just meant to be minor? While the ethos of the article is to highlight Prof Yellon's work and place in the field of cardiovascular research and the revised text retains much of the original article, the format is changed and there are multiple edits as a new piece almost entirely.

Many thanks, Sara ProfYellon (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 21-AUG-2019

 * To expedite your request, kindly state each specific desired change in the form of verbatim statements which can be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described including the exact location where the desired claims are to be placed. Finally, reasons should be provided for each change. An example edit request for how this is to be done is shown below:


 * Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


 * Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


 * Using as the reference:


 * Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  22:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text and the placement locations.

Proposed deletion of article
I am nominating this article for deletion. A quick |google search yields no significant notable information for the subject. There are no significant |newspaper articles, |nothing in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. The subject is not notable at all where a Wikipedia article is merited. A more significant concern appears to be that this appears to be an article created, either by self or by payment, for (self-)promotion. A review of the article history demonstrates a substantial focus on quarternary sources, e.g., where the subject has been mentioned in isolated sentences or in appendices. Of even more serious concern is that tags highlighting possible COI and concerns of notability |appear to have been summarily removed by this single purpose user.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The whole thing reads like a puff piece.  Or something extracted from a CV.  WP:NOTE for me.Fortnum (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Puff piece
Very deeply concerning that that the article tags have been reverted to make it appear that this person is notable, in a obviously frivolous puff piece. The Wikipedia guidelines on notable academics are quite clear. See WP:PROF. Scopecreep has argued rather frivolously about some index of publication to argue this chap has notability, disregarding the entire WP:PROF notabillity guidelines. It is categorically mentioned that H-index is not considered a metric of notability, and moreover being widely published may get you a good private practice, it does not get you a Wikipedia article. The logic appears this chap is notable for being a well-published academic in a university, by which metric all Ivy league professors would have their own Wikipedia page. The subject has listed a few things like being on scientific committee of which there are many, and being a lead investigator etc that there are literally thousands of in Britain. I am sure there are many thousands of graduates from South African Universities with Pharmacology. The article, written by the academic himself or his staff, clearly demonstrates lack of WP:notability by the fact this is an orphan article, there are no claims nor any support of notability, and the versions through the creation clearly demonstrate this is designed to boost the person's profile and does little else, ie, this is article is more about promotions. There has been discussion to this end in the past so far as it was proposed and supported that the article be deleted.

Lastly, it is very poor taste to revert a longstanding editor's real concerns by labeling them disruptive. I gave Scopecreep the courtesy of informing him of reversion and have given the logics in edit summary. I expect the same courtesy. I am going to revert this edit to re-institute that the subject does not met WP: notability guidelines. I will take this further if appropriate logic is not provided. Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think it is non-notable take it to Afd, and argue it out there.  scope_creep Talk  13:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am hoping the article will not need deleted. This has been discussed in the past and the same concerns for which the tag has been placed was reiterated. Hence article for deletion discussion is not the right place. I can see you are very inexperienced in both editing wikipedia and in handling conflicts, therefore instead of engaging you in an edit war I am going to ask for comments from a third party. I have left your edits as they are because I do not wish to engage in an edit war.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may not be the best place for it, but it would settle in two minutes, although I wouldn't like to take to Afd either. I will get an two academics who are admins, here for a second opinion, today.   scope_creep Talk  09:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

as I wrote below, Yellon looks like a pass of WP:NPROF, as far as notability goes. I've done a fair bit of cleanup on the article. (It helped a lot to find the interview published by the AHA!) Do you still have concerns? If not, perhaps you'd be comfortable removing the coi tag? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC).

Thankyou Russ, and thankyou for your efforts in this article which has improved it much since I placed the 3O request. The COI tag was not implemented by myself, therefore I'm not comfortable commenting on the appropriateness of removal of this tag. The article itself appears wiki-appropriate now, but quite frankly my concerns are not addressed in as much as the subject is just an academic who happened to have published widely. It is unclear what it is they have done, and really none of the WP:PROF criteriae are met (despite the subject having n number of publications).

As I have explained before, I hope the article will not face proposal for deletion, and hence my request for 3O, but it will appear that a UCL professor who felt they deserve a Wikipedia article has gone ahead and has had it written, and we have worked backwards to justify the creation of this article in good wiki-spirit (which is at least a plus-point to Wikipedia). The AHA interview is the only comforting factor mitigating my concern to a very minor degree, but of note a high number of publications per se is not a wiki notability. Many academics have had this, and I'm sure to get to UCL the subject must have had a good research output, which is indicated in the AHA interview as well. Of note of caution the ISHR notability is dubious, it is not what exactly is described as a notable award, prize or membership, considering we are talking about institutions and prestiges like the FRS (not FRCS), Nobel prizes and the like that we are talking about, whereas the ISHR appears to be a rather obscure organization (not something like European Society of Cardiology, or British Cardiovascular Society, or American College of Cardiology)with a low impact factor journal. Furthermore, given that we are using the resources created by and around the subject as references, including a PhD thesis, I'm not sure whether it is the institute or the subject who is famous (a widely published researcher witting in a world famous university, with an AHA interview as a reference within the lifetime). As a comparison and contrast, compare for example pioneers in cardiovascular research of the current day in world famous universities e.g. Richard Lee were there is a specific notable achievement, or Prof. Adolf Hutter at Harvard University, Hiroshi Ashikaga at John Hopkins University none of who merit an article of their own at the current stage. If I were to make a list of Cardiologists, I cant find anything that would merit adding the subject to this list. I'll leave it to the wider community to decide, but as Russ has demonstrated, there are resources that I am not familiar with.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion request
A third opinion has been sought.

This is a self-created article by the subject of the article (or his secretarial staff). As previously noted, A quick |google search yields no significant notable information for the subject and points to this wikipedia article as a primary source. The subjects claim to notabillity appears to be being an academic in a well-known university and having had a large number of publications (although high quality publications, e.g., Science, appear lacking. There is a single Nature review from quite a while ago). There are no significant |newspaper articles, |nothing in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. This person does not pass the "average professor" test as suggested in the WP:PROF guideline. Furthermore WP:PROF guidelines are clear on notabillity criterion. Specifically see here and it is clear that "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Moreover, user Scopecreep appears to suggest H-index count was high, disregarding the fact that it is specifically mentioned as being unreliable in the WP:PROF guidelines. This in itself is concerning that wikipedia is being used as a mantlepiece badge, ie, this appears to be a puff piece. There are no significant |newspaper articles, |nothing in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. The subject is not notable at all where a Wikipedia article is merited.

The article uses a number of odd references, of which when you scrutinise appear to be general notes and documents of records. I am not able to see anything in these to see if, how or why this person is notable.

A more significant concern appears to be that the article creator has taken issue (as clear in the edit summaries) with the scrutiny this article has been subjected to. I have no idea what communications are ongoing off-wiki, but removal of tag of concern without discussion and personal attacks are uncalled for. Moreover, normal fruitful wiki collaboration would have seen a substantial response to the above talk. I am going to recuse myself from this article after a request for 3rd opinion is addressed.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I count 8 publications with over 1000 GS citations. That looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, especially backed by the subject's honorary degrees.  The ISHR fellowship looks like C3.  In my experience from AfD discussions, I think the article would survive.  The article did  start as an autobiography, but the subject correctly ran it through AfC, as is permitted.  (He tried to make a few edits after that, but it looks like all were reverted.)  The article does need some work, but I've certainly seen worse.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion If you do not think he is notable, you are free to nominate his article for deletion. I highly recommend you use the Twinkle script to help you do so. We don't deal with deletion discussions on talk pages. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of edits
Upon reading the review of this article and lack of research substance, I added further information on the subject to give background to achievements and legacy. These edits have now been removed and I wanted to query the reason. Thank you. CVM BRC (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You added a lot of unsourced content, already included in brief earlier in the article. This was a main problem, per WP:BLPSOURCES.  The tone was also overly promotional; see WP:NPOV.  What is your connection with Yellon? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have worked professionally & academically with Prof Yellon and wanted to add these achievements as they have provided a platform for high level research in the field of cardiology. CVM BRC (talk) 09:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have a conflict of interest, according to Wikipedia's COI rules. If you find reliable independent sourcing (see WP:RS), then you can bring it to the talk page here.  I didn't find such for the text you copied in from elsewhere, although it's been a while since I looked.  I agree with Scope Creep that the Clarivate listing does not add much. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)