Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Katz


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Katz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable professor. Article is an orphan, and no other page on the wiki even mentions him. He had an article on French Wikipedia until 2017; that's the language in which we'd expect most of the sources to be, yet they voted to delete his article. (fr:Discussion:Gregory_Katz/Suppression) A WP:PAID contributor, User:Jkorsunsky, made a bunch of WP:ER's which have sat in Category:Requested edits since 6 May; some were accepted, but most of the ones that are sitting there add a bunch of unremarkable information. After submitting, I'll be putting them on hold. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:Too soon. Very low GS citations for a highly cited field. BLP bears the hallmarks of promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Comment. I don't understand this case. The article description makes him sound like a well-established professor with a long history of past scholarly accomplishment and recognition, already a chaired professor in 2004. The Google Scholar profile tells a very different story, with relatively few publications and citations even now, and almost nothing then. Is there any explanation for this discrepancy? The French discussion hints at similar doubt among participants there, but without detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Power and money. Until clarification arrives the en.Wikiepdia should defer to the French who know him best. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: As a paid editor who has put a lot of thought and research into Gregory Katz’ article, I wish to address some of the issues mentioned on this page:
 * Notability: Gregory Katz was a chaired professor as early as 2004. He received the San Benedetto prize (recipients include Joseph Ratzinger and the Prime Minister of Poland). His research has had an impact on health policy regulations concerning cord blood stem cells in France and Europe. More recently he directed a report endorsed by the European Union comparing 22 member states in Value-Based Health Care practices, and was chosen by Newsweek as one of 6 world experts to validate the methodology for benchmarking the world’s best hospitals. All of these statements are of course referenced in the current article or on the Talk page.
 * Why English? Katz’ career is French, European, and international. This is based on the above-statements (Italian prize, European publications, Newsweek), the fact that a large proportion of his publications are in English, the Chair of Innovation & Value in Health that he currently heads is designed for an international audience (the website is only in English as far as I could see), and many of his publications are in international journals.
 * Publications: I do not know how Google Scholar works, but there is a large body of work waiting on the Talk page for verification. The sources used include many in which Katz was lead author.
 * Sources: Virtual every statement on the page is backed up by one or several factual, verifiable sources from recognized publications and websites with independent publishing guidelines.
 * Incompleteness & organization: As I mentioned above, the page is currently very incomplete pending a review of the material on the Talk page.
 * Orphan: Yes, so far the page is an orphan but I believe that in itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article.
 * Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the San Benedetto prize, it seemed to me a non-notable prize when I nominated the article. I was not able to find a page on it here in the encyclopedia, neither did I find much information online. I believe I may have found evidence Benedict XVI actually went to receive it, and it wasn't just an honorary designation, so this is perhaps relevant information. (I did not search the Italian name when I nominated.) Let's see what other editors have to say about it. I guess that the Catholic Church finds him praiseworthy due to his research into umbilical cord stem cells, as they're against other types of stem cells? It's certainly interesting information, so thank you for bringing it up. I think that the prize itself should have an article, and invite you to write one. As regards writing reports to the EU, many people do that who are not notable in Wikipedia terms. As regards Newsweek, please see WP:RSP, as of 2013, we no longer consider Newsweek a reliable source. As regards the French language, thank you for your comment. Perhaps I gave too much weight to the assessment by French Wikipedians. As regards being an orphan, this is never itself a reason to delete, rather we use it as a benchmark for a person's general notability. I'd like to ask you to please stop using the request edit template until this AfD process concludes. You may of course continue to look for sources and continue putting them on the talk page, all editors can see them and decide whether or not they make him notable. We're deciding on notability, not article quality, so there is no hurry for us to implement your WP:ERs until notability issue is settled, and you are taking up space in the ER queue and taxing resources of ER implementers such as myself, who are all volunteers, for an article that may end up deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you find out how Google scholar works before you undertake further articles about academics, no matter how much they pay you to write about them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF. #C5 is more plausible, but that criterion is only for chairs given for great scholarly accomplishment, clearly not the case here. The paid editing and promotionalism is also not helping. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of 's contention that the San Benedetto prize makes him notable? Possible WP:PROF? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a prize for the promotion of Catholic family values rather than for academic accomplishment. As such it does not pass #C2 and we do not have any plausible claim that it separately passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Prima facie, the closest to a plausible case would be WP:PROF, but it doesn't look like the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is actually the kind of position which C5 refers to. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All the criteria for WP:PROF are satisfied: he's a full professor, holds a Chair at a distinguished university (#1 French university for the citation rate per article - https://u-paris.fr/en/key-figures/) and the university source is reliable. Jkorsunsky (talk)
 * Being a full professor isn't a criterion anywhere in WP:PROF (what that title means varies radically from place to place). And, again, the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is not the kind of chair that counts for C5. The provided source is irrelevant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am simply quoting WP:PROF: "The person has held a named chair appointment [...] at a major institution of higher education and research." On what grounds does this chair not qualify? The source is provided to show that University of Paris is "a major institution of higher education and research". WP:PROF also states: "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". So this is a necessary requirement that Katz satisfies. I understand these are simply guidelines, but the guidelines here are met. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems like his career peaked in the mid-1990s. Or am I mistaken? .Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Katz was born in 1971, making him 24 years old in 1995. He didn't defend his two theses until 1999 and 2000 respectively, so a mid-1990s peak is implausible. Jkorsunsky (talk)


 * Comment While not yet fact but food for thought, Katz is on the verge of being elected a member of the French National Academy of Surgery, founded in 1731. The nomination was delayed because of the Covid lockdown. (https://academie-chirurgie.fr/calendrier/best_of_2019_9_chirurgie_la_qualite). He will therefore soon meet criterion WP:PROF. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that if the subject were to be elected to the French National Academy of Surgery he would pass WP:PROF shows a misunderstanding of WP:Prof. The primary criterion is WP:Prof. The others, such as WP:PROF are just guides to possible notability and do not guarantee it. For example the heir to the British throne is a Fellow of the Royal Society but that does not get him to satisfy WP:Prof. His notability is based on other grounds. It is even debatable if the French National Academy of Surgery is a major enough institution to satisfy WP:Prof anyway. It is also not clear from the BLP if the subject has ever done any surgery. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Draftify, to be submitted for review at AfC or similar before move back to main space. Membership in the French National Academy of Surgery would likely be a WP:NPROF C3 pass, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  I don't see a current pass of WP:NPROF or other notability guidelines.  The paid editor could meanwhile work somewhat more freely on a draft article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: What would be the purpose of creating a new draft article? The Talk page is already filled with well-sourced information. And why doesn't Katz qualify under WP:PROF, as I tried to demonstrate above in response to XOR&#39;easter? Jkorsunsky (talk)
 * I'm proposing moving the existing page back to the Draft namespace to incubate until notability can be demonstrated, not creating a new article. WP:NPROF C5 depends heavily on the specifics. I don't think anyone will be convinced by it here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Drafitfy per WP:TOOSOON, also thank you Jkorsunsky for getting back to me. (Also, the picture in the article bothers me. Could it be replaced in draft with one that does not match the style of a professional photographer and therefore is almost certainly copyrighted?)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, the image could be changed if copyright is an issue. Jkorsunsky (talk)
 * The photograph has the needed copyright permission and shouldn't be deleted just because it looks like it might need the permission that it does have!--Jahaza (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The photographer appears to be a paid photographer, like the author of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation if the subject eventually does meet one of the WP:NPROF criteria as this is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 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.