Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Cohen-Gadol


 * 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. There is consensus that the subject is notable under WP:NPROF, particularly with the lone delete !vote being based on the original argument of the nominator who has since changed their position to "keep". (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Cohen-Gadol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The current article is very promotional, but that is fixable. WP:GNG is not met: when you cull non-independent sources, you get a couple of routine coverage news articles. All other things I found in my general search are non-indy (AANS and university press releases, mostly).

So, we turn to WP:NPROF, which is more likely to be met. I am not convinced. Going through the NPROF criteria:


 * 1) "significant impact on the discipline" - In my opinion the best chance for a keep. Google Scholars shows fairly impressive citation counts (per policy this is not sufficient, but it is at least an indicator). I did not find any independent source saying "that guy is a great researcher", the problem is that those are usually written after one's death (unless you win a Nobel). Note that the lead says "one of the most effective 100 neurosurgeons in the United States" but the source is dead and I could not find anything like that.
 * 2) "highly prestigious award" - not that I can see.
 * 3) "elected member of highly selective society" - no. They are a fellow of the AANS but you can become one as long as you pay.
 * 4) "significant impact on higher education" - Maybe? I found this article via a Teahouse question about Draft:The Neurosurgical Atlas; this draft is an advertisement and the JNS editorial is a heavy marketing ploy, but maybe it is indeed a recognized source among practitioners (source?).
 * 5) "named chair" - not that I can tell
 * 6) "dean" - not that I can tell
 * 7) "impact outside academia" - not that I can tell
 * 8) "editor in chief at prestigious journal" - technically a clear fail because they are one of three associate editors at Neurosurgical Focus (proper source), which does have an EiC. Maybe some leeway could be given, but I am not inclined to do so when it is one of five AANS journals, each with their own editorial staff board of (relative) unknowns. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * for WP:NPROF the policy WP:GHITS does not apply since Google Scholar is a reputable site for aggregating citations (similar to Scopus/Web of Science or Microsoft Academic) and NPROF#1 clearly states: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Per past precedence, this person very clearly passes NPROF#1 without question. Also, only one criterion needs to be fulfilled for notability. --hroest 00:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh... Well, that settles it (Scopus has an h-index of 42). Unless neurochirurgy is a very high-citation field (but the AANS journals have IFs around 3 so I doubt it). Changing to keep, and pinging (I do not think the delete !vote amounts to much more than "per nom", but it prevents me from withdrawing.)  Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Conditional: He may qualify as notable if Draft:The Neurosurgical Atlas becomes an article, as he is the founder of that association. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the analysis suggests that Cohen-Gadol does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please reconsider your note as the nominating user who performed the analysis on which you based your vote has reconsidered. I am somewhat surprised by your judgement here as I thought you had a better understanding of academics and WP:NPROF given the frequency on which you comment on AfD of academics. --hroest 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep clearly passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 54 and 11k citations, and 17 papers with 100+ citations. --hroest 00:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear colleagues: Please give me a chance to provide all references required for any questions about any statements here that you may have. I assure you that I can provide strong proof for any of the statements mentioned above. This page has been active for a longtime and reviewed by many other reviewers and has remained active. 1) For my research impact, the H index provides the best metric and mine is 54. You can find this number in Scopus but registration for the Scopus is required. Please refer to this page that identifies me as the 12th highest author in history in terms of the # of publications in the neurosurgical field (https://thejns.org/search)(please see the left column with the search terms empty). The Journal of Neurosurgery is the most reputable journal in the field of neurosurgery. The top 100 neurosurgeons for research and clinical care are inducted in the Academy of Neurologcial Surgery by invitaiton only (https://www.americanacademyns.org/Default.aspx) I can obtain the requirement standards for this organization and send to you if needed. This Academy is very similar to the Nobel prize organization in neurosurgery. I was indicted a few years ago. This editorial (https://thejns.org/view/journals/j-neurosurg/126/4/article-p1029.xml) was written by the editor and chief of our most prestigious journal (Journal of Neurosurgery) following his survery of many of the readers of the Journal. This Editorial is not an advertisement and this Journal is extremely careful and considered the most reputable journal in neurosurgery worldwide. I had no impact on writing of this journal and this was written independently. I am happy to provide additional information as needed for any of the above esteemed reviewers.

The statement about edit-in-chief of the Neurosugical Focus is correctly mentioned as Associate Editor-in-Chief. Their website has not updated this role and I am happy to send you a paper from the journal to verify this title. I can also have them correct it immediately on their website if you can please give me a few days. Please advise. All the AANS Journals have the same office and staff. There are not different staff members in different offcies. Happy to provide additional info.

PLEASE allow me to clarfiy any quesitons you have before delting this page that has been there for many years. I truely believe that Wikipedia guidlines allow for presentation and inclusion of correct information (that are correclty mentioned in this page) rather than deleting my page which will be very unfortunate.

Also, please note that regarding your statement: "elected member of highly selective society" - no. They are a fellow of the AANS but you can become one as long as you pay." You are correc that the AANS (American Association of Neurological Surgeons will make you a member by paying) but that is very different from American Academy of Neurological Surgeons that is by invitation only and is similar and the only one of its kind among neurosurgeons like the Noble Prize Organization. Please note that since all statements are verifiable, it does not mean it is promotional. I hope Wikipedia guidelines allow for inclusion of hardwork that are truthful but do not mean their are "promotional." I hope we can provide credit to the hard work performed to achieve all the above statements on a voluntary basis without any expectations of personal benefit.
 * There are a few points here. The article is likely to be kept in light of the citation metrics but a few changes might be coming.
 * Regarding the academy/association, I did entirely miss the distinction between the two orgs. However, we are not going to ask for private emails/letters outlining the induction criteria - the article needs to go by what exists in published sources. Do you have a press release or something saying that you were elected a member? (It would not prove that it is highly selective, but it would warrant a mention on the page.)
 * Regarding the journal, the website does put you as associate EiC of NF so that looks good to me.
 * Regarding the Neurosurgical Atlas editorial, the article itself explains that the author (James Rutka, EiC of the JNS) is not independent of the project. Therefore it cannot be regarded as an independent source; it can still be used, but not for controversial statement, or to support notablity of the Atlas. In every research funding scheme I ever saw, you would have to recuse from the evaluation of grant proposals from your co-editors; well, the spirit of the rules is similar in Wikipedia. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passed WP:NPROF. With more than 11k citations and h-index of 54, clearly he is notable. SunDawn (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NPROF #1. Publications have demonstrated and increasing impact. ~Kvng (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * comment the article is clearly written by a WP:SPA and needs a complete overhaul.   I hope you can understand that statements like "Cohen works tirelessly to heal what is arguably the most delicate part of the human body: the brain" can look promotional and while suitable for a journalistic article are not suitable for an encyclopedic article that aims to be objective and verifiable. While it may very well be true that you (Cohen) work tirelessly, this is not something fit for writing in Wikipedia. --hroest 13:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@hroest Please do not change anything on this article as all details have undergone years of review by other reviewers. We can prove all the details via references.
 * it is common to change/improve the article while in AfD, please also see WP:OWN and this article needs a lot of work to fulfill the standards of Wikipedia. Who are the numerous editors who have reviewed the article, can you name them please? I also suggest to read WP:COISELF which states that you should actually not edit your own article but instead make suggestions on the talk page, as indicated in WP:COIREQ. I think this essay may also be helpful An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing to read. Best regards --hroest 15:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to add that is not contributing largely to his own article, with only 1.7% of the text edits added by him. Based on edits he is only editing around 4%, thus while he indeed have edited his own article it is in a tiny minority of the edits.SunDawn (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes I agree but there are two WP:SPA that do suspiciously only contribute to this article: Ellebeezy and Muaddib666 which were the ones I was referring to and together they wrote 66% of the article. At least one of them (Muaddib666) has admitted that the subject was his/her former employer, so there is a clear COI. I am not saying that Dr. Cohen-Gadol is doing this himself but there are few things to clean up here. --hroest 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this article survived this AfD major cleanup (and clear declaration from the WP:SPA about their WP:COI) needs to be done. SunDawn (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a go at NPOV-izing the article. The result is not perfect but I think it is enough to eliminate the POV tags; please remove them if you agree.
 * I have communicated with on their talk page but I do not think they understand the NPOV policy much.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is a problem. Instead of following guidelines and reducing COI editing, what happened is yet another SPA shows up. --hroest 18:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Excluding (the subject) and  (who openly said they were paid), SPAs for this article are, , , , . I ran an online search for each, but per WP:OUTING I cannot share the exact keywords or results, so the following is intentionally vague. Two of them I found nothing, another I found hits but I strongly suspect it is a pseudonym taken from another online persona, one of them I am not sure of my ID but if I did find the correct person they are probably a paid editor (works in PR/comms), and one of them I am almost certain and they are almost certainly not a paid editor (think colleague, friend or relative of ACG, works in something that is not PR/comms). So while we do have a COI problem, I do not think we have a PAID problem (or at least not a big one).  Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@tigraan: I have NEVER PAID anyone so far to work on my page. The only person you are thinking of getting paid worked for me before and was not paid for this page whatsoever. I do not know the other persons working on this page. Others have mentioned in this forum that I only work on 1.7% of my article that is negligible.

Please note almost all the contents of this article is not written the Aaron Cohen-Gadol. Please see this page for the confirmation of the membership of the American Academy of Neurosurgical Surgery. https://www.societyns.org/about/officers-detail/aaron-cohen-gadol-md-msc-mba This page is verifed by the Senior Society of Neurosurgeons which is associated with the American Academy of Neurological surgeons. Please also note the James Rutka, The EIC of the JNS is not associated with the Atlas or receives any benefits. You are welcome to search the Atlas website for any significant association with him. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acohenmd (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Kudos to those who edited this page out of TNT consideration... Scopus gives him an h-index of 42 and 7514 total citations, which is above the average of his 15 most frequent collaborators (will skew heavily towards highly-established researchers) and good enough for me. The statements about developing endoscopic endonasal surgery definitely don't need 13 citations though! JoelleJay (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly passes NACADEMIC#1 based on citations.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This page has been significantly revamped and the consensus is to keep this page. Can I please ask for the banners to be removed as these banners have led to unexpected consequences unrelated to their goal?
 * The considered for deletion banner goes away when an Administrator rules. Also, please remember to 'sign' comments by typing for of ~ at end. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Non-connected editors have cut a lot of the not-NPOV and over-citation to his journal articles. What remains is in my opinion a valid article. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2021 (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.