Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatriz Amendola


 * 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. DGG is pretty much the acknowledged expert of what meets WP:NPROF. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Beatriz Amendola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable Oncologist. Once I went through all the spam, the three sources left behind (one of which is an interview) is the best I can find. Not only was this article likely made by a UPI but I believe she fails GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable oncologist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Amendola might meet WP:ACADEMIC based on citations of her work. She's a coauthor on 3 papers with over 100 citations and 11 with over 50 according to Google Scholar. According to this primary source, she received a gold medal from the Circulo de Radioterapeutas Ibero Latino Americano (CRILA) and was made an honorary member of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) due to her contributions to the specialty of Radiation Oncology in Spain. Thank you for trimming out the WP:PROMO. If kept, the article should be focused on her research. TJMSmith (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is always the shakiest notability metric for profs/researchers. It's a mixed bag on those papers in terms of her being first author. Her h-index is 23 on Scopus., which is about normal for an established researcher. It's solid, but not really establishing notability to the point that they should be included in an encyclopedia.


 * If there are secondary sources that really outline the her notability specifically, that would do the trick, but I'm not seeing that in the article right now either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. unambiguously meets WP:PROF accoring to the impact of her work as judgedby citations-- 3 papers with over 100 citations each; the level expected for notability according to WP:PROF in biomedical scence is at least one and preferable 2 papers with >100 itations each; she has 3.  So far from being the "shakiest notability metric for professors", the publication of influential work as judged bhy citations is the basic and most often used and most important measure; the other parts of WP:PROF  are either just shortcuts for it (such as national level prizes, which inevitably are based on such papers) ), or special cases (such as influential textbooks). This was still being disputed when I came here 13 years ago, but it's been the universal a standard in  the field at WP ever since then. There is no need whatever for secondary sources in the usual sense  to meet WP:PROF--or, more exactly, the secondary sources are the journals that cite the published work.   DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * but I should add that what is unreliable is the h index, because that only discriminates poor work from mediocre work--it's the excellent work shown by papers that have high citations that gives influence and therefore meets notability. Nobody becomes influential in science by publishing 23 papers which are cited 23 times each. This is very different from publishing 3 with 100 citations and 20 papers with fewer, which also yields a h of 23, and therefore does show influential work.  DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per DGG. Let me just add that her field is not particularly popular, and having received as many citations as she has she clearly is influential. On top of that, there is coverage discussing this, particularly in Florida and also relating to her Institute. Also, she appears to have been at least Radiation Therapy Departmental Chair at the University of Michigan, so that's yet another notability claim. Yes, remove the spam, but arguing she doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC is silly. One cannot judge physicians purely on the GNG. PK650 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2020 (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.