Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Berghaus


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  J 947 ( c ) (m)   00:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Berghaus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography contains no independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and the only claim of meeting WP:NPROF is unsourced. RexxS (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The circumstances of the creation of this article may be questionable. However, Alexander Berghaus is a notable medical scientist. According to Web of Science he has an h-index of 23 and 222 listed publications. The article refers to
 * A. Berghaus: Porous polyethylene in reconstructive head and neck surgery. In: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 111, 1986, 1985, S. 154–160.
 * which is one of his most influential publications with a citation count of 79 which is still cited (2 citations from 2017). Hence, WP:NPROF is given per its first criterion. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not notable by WP:GNG. WP:NACADEMIC #1 requires "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". These independent reliable sources are demonstrably missing from this article – in fact there is a complete absence of any relevant independent sources. I'm sympathetic to academics who are genuinely notable within their field, as there are often fewer independent sources available, but merely being cited by others is not a free pass to notability for an otherwise unremarkable career. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are claiming this as if this would be a fact. But the facts are different. The article I've cited above appears to be the first work to present the use of porous polyethylene as implant material for plastic surgery. It is, for example, cited in Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: A comprehensive review of the literature by J. P. Rubin and M. J. Yaremchuk in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, vol. 100, no. 5, October 1997, pp. 1336–1353. Quote from p. 1341:
 * Silicone has been a widely used implant material. Seven studies, describing 239 patients,111–117 reveal an infection rate of 3.8 percent and an exposure/extrusion rate of 2.9 percent for mixed facial implant sites (Table II). Porous polyethylene has enjoyed a much lower infection rate (0.9 percent) and almost no displacement.118–121
 * 118 refers to the above mentioned paper. Quite a number of those citations are studies which confirm the suitability of this material.
 * Again, the circumstances on how this article was written are indeed concerning and it is surely justified to review these cases critically. But the introduction and medical evaluation of a new implant material is surely to be considered as a “significant impact”. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a fact. And why should it have "surely" "significant impact"? If it's so obviously significant, where are the independent secondary sources that tell us that? With all due respect, we insist on secondary sources so that we don't have to rely on either your or my judgement on that point. If I build a better-mouse-trap and publish an academic article comparing it with a standard mouse trap, should I expect a Wikipedia article about me and my invention as soon as my article gets cited? The marketeers will be rubbing their hands in glee. Have I not been clear about the fact that the article has no usable sources? We have the following guideline (WP:WHYN):
 * We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" ... We require the existence of at least one secondary source ...
 * Not only that, but we have a policy that no guideline can override (WP:STICKTOSOURCE):
 * If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.
 * No amount of citations, impact factors and h-indices can make up for the fact that there are no independent, secondary sources to use in order to write the article without original research. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cited an independent source above. Here is another one: A. Shanbhag et al, Evaluation of porous polyethylene for external ear reconstruction, in: Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 24, no. 1, January 1990, pp. 32–39. Quote from p. 32:
 * One of the predominant problems in ear reconstruction of both congenital and traumatic deformities is the provision of a satisfactory ear framework. Currently the most commonly used material is autogenous rib cartilage. However, a number of problems are associated with its use. [..] For these reasons investigators have been searching for almost 50 years for an ideal alloplastic material that could be formed preoperatively, sterilized, and implanted unter the appropriate soft tissue covering. Unfortunately, none of these materials have proved satisfactory. [..] More recently, porous alloplastic materials have proved clinically useful as implants in a number of areas including blood vessel replacement, breast augmentation, and total hip replacement. The porosity of the implant allows collagenous tissue ingrowth into the material, anchoring it into position and providing a larger interface between the alloplastic implant and the soft tissues of the body. One such material is porous polyethylene. Berghaus and colleagues reported some initial success with this material in ear reconstructions, although long-term follow-up studies are not yet available.
 * This is independent and there are many other likewise independent sources that evaluate the material which was first introduced by Berghaus for plastic surgery. In the meantime you will find also long-term studies covering this. You are right that the article falls short of presenting this. But there is no doubt that Bergstein did significant work in this field. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be awkward about this, but are you really suggesting that the above quote from 2301880 is sufficient to base a biography of Berghaus on? I simply don't believe there is enough material available from independent secondary sources to use in order to write a proper biography, regardless of whether or not he meets a SNG – and I still haven't seen it "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" per NPROF#1. There's no point in attempting to establish notability if there's nothing we can write without doing OR. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be awkward about this, but are you really suggesting that the above quote from 2301880 is sufficient to base a biography of Berghaus on? I simply don't believe there is enough material available from independent secondary sources to use in order to write a proper biography, regardless of whether or not he meets a SNG – and I still haven't seen it "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" per NPROF#1. There's no point in attempting to establish notability if there's nothing we can write without doing OR. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The author of this article admitted at de:wp that he was paid for it by the subject. The article at de:wp was developed in March to July 2015, and then translated to English in August 2015. (The added “A” is short for “Auftragsarbeit“, i.e. paid editing. Ventus55 was asked in September to declare at de:wp openly which of his articles were paid for.) --AFBorchert (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Based mostly on his CV and primary sources written by himself. Much of the rest is not supported at all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not especially impressed by his citation counts, but as a member of the Academy of Sciences Leopoldina he clearly passes WP:PROF. And works such as this (a biography of him as a contributor to a book, but written by the editor of the book) appear to meet the need for reliable secondary coverage of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . That weakens my argument for deletion. I've used those two sources to improve the lead, although I feel we're still some way short of an "article rely[ing] primarily on third-party or independent sources" per WHYN. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a member of the Academy of Sciences Leopoldina helps to meet WP:PROF + other contributions. An article on de.wiki (link) is also a good indicator of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, members of the Leopoldina are clearly notable academics. —Kusma (t·c) 13:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2017 (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.