Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Udeani


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

George Udeani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While 1900+ citations usually is rather significant, in the present case almost all of these citations are to one single article on which this person is a minor author. Very modest publication record (4 articles listed in WoS from the last 10 years, 1 from the last 5). Editor-in-Chief of a journal, but not a major one (does not even exist yet and appears to be self-published). One book in press, but also self-published. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that Évariste Galois, a well recognized and 'notable' mathematician had a h-index of 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Top GS cites are 2074, 77, 21 with h index = 6. This is a case where h index is more indicative than citation count. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep. I don't think this individual's citations bear more weight than his accomplishments which includes being a significant part of the discovery team that uncovered four major drugs including resveratrol, deguelin, tephrosin and betulinic acid. Cancer remains a major threat worldwide and it is projected that in the year 2010, it will become the leading cause of death in the world. In this particular case, the quality of this individual's work out-weighs the h-index or any other factors including citations. Chaagg1 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Please note that the quality of this person's work is not an issue here at all, we are uniquely concerned with encyclopedic notability. --Crusio (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is ironic that Wikipedia used this scientist’s work to demonstrate notability for Deguelin, where 25% of the citations is his work, but does not find him notable for Wikipedia. Please note, this individual made Deguelin.  Deguelin did not make this scientist.  I still say Keep.  --Chaagg1 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not vote more than once in a debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
 * This isn't a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Handschuh-talk to me 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see section on how to conduct an AfD debate in WP:AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I assumed that that comment was directed at me, so I did review that section. I didn't find anything that seemed relevant to my previous comment though. What are you getting at? Handschuh-talk to me 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as the subject seems notable. Handschuh-talk to me 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why this seems this way to you? What criteria of the GNC or of WP:PROF are being met? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about criterion 1, since he played a key role in the discovery of several drugs, notable in his field? Or criterion 7, for that matter, since the drugs are used by many people outside of academia? Handschuh-talk to me 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Yes, if all that were true, he would be more than notable. However, if you look at the references and look more closer into these grandiose claims, then you will see that it is all puffery. If this person was as briljant as claimed, then why is he now not a big shot at some pharmaceutical company or university? I have not been able to find out what, if any, position he has currently. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. My position is now to delete. Handschuh-talk to me 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Udeani seems to have been involved in a minor controversy, although it does not seem to have garnered enough attention to meet GNG directly. This document shows that in 2008 he was suspended and put on probation for 3 years by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for "failure to perform pharmacist-in-charge duties". The pharmacy apparently closed immediately after this. Although it does not establish notability, if the article stays, this should obviously be added to it, although it would be nice if some more details could be found. --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Assistant professor who was on a team that discovered something. This is not a sufficient claim of notability. High cite number only reflects membership on this team, and it is clear that he was not the main discover. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Not enough academic credentials to be obviously notable, and the "will be published soon"-type of material is disturbing, but has apparently made some contributions in areas which tend to be high-profile and receive attention from general media, so I lean towards keep after all. Tomas e (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Updated original artical on George Udeani to include academic work. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * like resume. So tagged. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: we should only include significant information about its subjects, not just list all available data. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I believe the biggest argument against Udeani is his article publications and whether he was a significant contributor to the articles cited.  I just went through his page and he seems to have enough articles where he is first author. Also, we should not dilute the significance of his contributions to drug development.  Someone argued earlier, that he should be at a University or working for a pharmaceutical company if he is brilliant. Apart from the fact that this does not establish notability, we do not know that he is not, therefore I find that argument petty, unprofessional and very subjective.  Subject seems notable to me.--Soccersunshine (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — Soccersunshine (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Look at it this way. According to the article, Udeani is a giant of cancer drug discovery. "Udeani and colleagues discovered and developed four anti-cancer agents", nothing less. Yet, there are no sources showing that he ever published any significant articles (except that Science paper on which he is a minor author) or had a position more significant than assistant professor. On the other hand, we have sources establishing that he was working as a pharmacist in some ordinary pharmacy as recently as 2008. Somehow, these things don't square with each other. I think that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is more reliable than some editor adding unsourced stuff to this bio. (And given the detailed knowledge this editor has about Udeani's career -nothing of which seems to be available online- this is clearly a person close to Udeani, or perhaps this is even an autobiography). --Crusio (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just took a second look at Udeani's article, there is no where it is stated that he is a Giant of drug discovery; as a matter of fact, I read that he significantly participated to the development of 4 major cancer drugs and honestly, this is good enough for me. If we went about looking into the details of every notable person's background, we surely will find that many may have interned, moonlighted /held second jobs in not too attractive organizations. Does this disqualify their contributions? I think not. I believe that Wikipedia was designed for more than politics and that is the direction I am going to take. Two of 8 articles on deguelin listed on Wikipedia are from Udeani.  High citation for resveratrol and not deguelin or betulinic acid which is currently in clinical trials is simply because there appears to be more interest in this common drug, which is present in wine and fruit. It takes a long time to approve drugs.--Soccersunshine (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Response Somebody who works full time in academia or the drug industry simply does not have time to "moonlight" as a pharmacist. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere that it was "Udeani and colleagues" that discovered these drugs. At the very best (and not even that is certain), Udeani was part of the teams that did this, him being a very minor member of those teams. And then apparently he left research. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The citations for the resveratrol paper are quite impressive, but his position in the author list indicates that his role in the paper was relatively minor, and the rest of the citations, while not bad, aren't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. And if not that, what reason is there to keep the article? Contrary to Tomas e's keep comment, he himself has not received attention from general media: some of the subjects he's studied have, but notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - at first glance this person seems notable, but upon further examination and consideration of the discussions above, it seems pretty clear to me that he does not pass WP:PROF, and the fact that he appears to have been only a minor contributor to these discoveries does not indicate to me that he merits inclusion under the notability guidelines.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Weak delete the one extremely highly cited publication does not seem to indicate that he had any particularly important role in it.,as explained by David E. The disciplinary action is minor & unrelated to any likely notability otherwise.   DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 January 2010 (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.