Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Csaba P. Kovesdy


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Csaba P. Kovesdy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet Wp:Academic. The one concept he has been linked with was found to be not notable at a recent AFD (see Burnt-out diabetes mellitus) Article has single author who seems to be a single issue editor and removed Prod without further elucidationPorturology (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I tagged this for notability just a few minutes ago, I have meanwhile checked the Web of Science. Subject has 125 publications listed (some of them just abstracts, most are regular articles, though), that have been cited 1595 times in total. His h-index is 21. Top citation counts 275, 150, 90. Meets WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just two thoughts - which criteria of WP:Academic does he meet? I don't think his academic output is very high for an ass-pro in nephrology and as we have just discussed his concept of burn-out has not set the world on fire (sorry for the pun). Porturology (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, for an associate prof, this is a very respectable output. In addition, people like Kovesdy cannot spend all their time on research, they also practice medicine at the same time. Finally, just publishing is, of course, not enough: all academics publish. But Kovesdy's publications have also been noted with very respectable citation counts. To me, this is a clear meet of WP:PROF C1. As for the burnt-out diabetes, this is a new concept (only published in 2010), so we'll have to see whether this will become more generally accepted (for the moment, that paper has been cited just once - not unusual for such a relatively new paper). --Crusio (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Burnt-out diabetes as a concept has existed for decades. According to User:Burntout1234 (or whatever his name is) it was just Kovesdy who coined the name. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope we do not kill the messenger. A biased scientist has this far managed to delete the "burnt-out diabetes" concept. It is now being appealed via conventional escalation. Kindly allow balanced discussion and support paradigm shifting, despite the fact that the conservative scientist cammp will likely not tolerate new concepts and progresses towards a cure for diabetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout1234 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE You are currently blocked. Creating a sockpuppet to evade such a block is a serious offense and may get you blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Please desist. --Crusio (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: and the related account  have made few or no other edits outside this topic. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof, although in a highly cited subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Would like to endorse the astute comments, analyses and suggestions by "Crusio" and by "Xxanthippe" without further comments.
 * [Also in the interest of avoiding further distractions, I would like to suggest removing my own comments above ("... hope we do not kill the messenger...") along with the subsequent comments about my temporary blockage, so that the discussion remains focused on the merit of the page and not be influenced by peripheral events.] Burntout123 (talk)To_Expand_Tolerance_ —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Question to Xxanthippe: how has "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  (emphasis added). I don't see that the impact has been deemed significant by WP:RS (just being published does not make one's contributions significant). JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If all he had done was publish, you'd be correct: all academics publish. What counts is whether those publications get noted. In the present case, 1600 scientific publications have cited one or more articles of Kovesdy. To me, that equals "significant impact". --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But of his >100 publications and >1000 citations in how many was he the sole or lead author Porturology (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As with 99% of articles in life sciences, he was sole author on none or only a few. He was first or last author on many of the >100 articles (sorry, no time to start counting all that, you can find most here) Of the 1600 citations he was not an author of the vast majority (obviously, a he doesn't have 1600 articles... :-). --Crusio (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument being that the gross number of articles must be tempered by his contribution to them - if he was a junior researcher then his notability is considerably less than if he was the lead author Porturology (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Apologies, but I don't see the subject meeting the criteria of Academic (AKA WP:PROF), but feel free to point out where I'm incorrect:
 * No evidence of significant impact yet - The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * No - The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * No - The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
 * No - The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * No - The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * No - The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * No - The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * No - The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * No - The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: With all due respect for the latter notes the above is not valid, since one needs to meet only one or a few of the criteria. In this case he meets the first criteriopn significant impact per analyses by "crusio" (see above). Moreover, the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions as evident by his/her publication record and citation record.-burntout123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyvio problem. Other than the last sentence, the entire article is a copyvio of his profile at touchnephrology.com, and the article existed in that form as of 4 May. IMHO, recreation from scratch of the page is permissible, but the new page must cite secondary sources that are independent of Kovesdy (and not papers he co-authored). —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of the copied text, the page has been reported at WP:Copyright problems. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyvio situation has been corrected; see new comment below to make time sequence clearer. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with JoeSperrazza. If we are going to create articles on all academics who have made some minor innovations in their field, we'd end up with 1000s of BLPs that are not interesting to anyone. Clearly Burntout123(4) has taken it upon himself to glorify this researcher. The concept of "burnt-out diabetes" is not even Kovesdy's - the idea that glycaemic control often improves as renal function deteriorates has been around for decades. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. AfDs of researchers are judged according to WP:Prof and WP:GNG alone. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment. WP:PROF and WP:ACADEMIC are both shortcuts to Notability (academics). Not meeting WP:ACADEMIC means the subject does not meet WP:PROF. JoeSperrazza (talk)


 * Comment - Kovesdy is associated with Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, someone with a very similar interest (he coined the slightly controversial concept "reverse epidemiology", which is cited more widely). I have the feeling that both seem to have a wiki-suave support base. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep : Just revised the article to avoid copyright violation (and I am not him, seriously) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Csaba_P._Kovesdy/Temp
 * Revised article, fully compliant with copyright regulations, is now posted. - (talk)- --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote added by Burntout123. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment wasn't a duplicate, but the !vote was, so I've pared it back to strike only that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete without prejudice. As I indicated before, secondary sources are a key component of this article that are missing. So long as there are no secondary sources, the article should exist. If at some point in the future he gets substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I would have no objection to an article being created. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Crusio's analysis. The citations are sufficient to show him an authority in his field. If we were to use the GNG, we would find that there are hundreds of secondary RSs from the articles citing him--the normal case is that 1/2 to 1/4 of them will discuss his work specifically, not merely cite, and many of them would be substantial discussions. The reason we have WP:PROF is that using the GNG in this literal sense would permit us to have an article on essentially anyone who has been cited more than half a dozen times, which would be an inclusion of our notability criteria to includes most  assistant professors in the sciences,   a great many post=doctoral fellows, and a large number of graduate students. (as an estimate, I think we could find a quarter-million in biology alone) I do not think there is anyone here who would argue for that degree of inclusion for academics--it would  violate the spirit of WP:Directory.    DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Substantially the same findings as Crusio. The article itself is not well-written, but the subject does appear to be notable according to WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (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.