Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander van Akkooi


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Alexander van Akkooi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article lacks independent reliable sources as all of the citations are research publications where van Akkooi is a co-author and a listing of a medical conference speaker bio. The article appears to fail all 8 criteria at WP:NACADEMIC although his being head of surgery at the Melanoma Institute might marginally meet item #5, the equivalent of having a named adademic department chair. I ran a search "Alexander van Akkooi" +melanoma and +sarcoma but there was no return with any independent sources covering him. In summary, this is a respected physician/researcher but I'm not seeing where he meets WP:ANYBIO with independent reliable sources. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A named or endowed chair is not the same as a department chair. The former is a special recognition, above and beyond just being a tenured professor, generally indicating a high level of esteem from the professional community. The latter is an administrative position. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my own understanding of requirement #5 for NACADEMIC. From what I've read thus far van Akkooi appears to be respected among his colleagues but he lacks independent coverage.  (I've authored and co-authored peer-reviewed scientific publications in enough quantity to write an autobiography.;-)  But there's no independent coverage about me either!) Blue Riband► 00:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is undisclosed paid editing. See Sockpuppet investigations/Ch1p the chop. This SPI is linked to an older case. Probably will qualify for WP:G5 once documented. MarioGom (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:G5: Actually it meets the G5 date with the current case already. MarioGom (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged it for G5 speedy delete. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the G5 was declined to allow this discussion to run its course. Note that an endowed chair only means that the person is well-esteemed within his own institution. You cannot imply external recognition from that fact. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. First-author citations on Google Scholar appear to be 306 ("Clinical relevance of melanoma micrometastases"), 283 ("Sentinel node tumor burden"), 126 ("Morbidity and prognosis after therapeutic lymph node dissections"), 113 ("High positive sentinel node identification rate"), 67 ("Expert opinion in melanoma: the sentinel node"). This is a high-citation-count topic, but I think there's enough to make at least a borderline case for WP:PROF. On the other hand, I think the G5 case is clear enough that unless someone else wants to adopt the article and continue to guard it against promotional editing (I don't) we're better off without this one. As for the speculation re endowed chairs: WP:PROF is clear that if he had one he would be notable, but he doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2022 (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.