Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideyuki Akaza


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hideyuki Akaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic / physician. Sources provided are links to an author's bio on a publishing website, not a reliable secondary source. Canada Hky (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone more knowledgeable knows better sources? I will say thanks to anyone who will provide any additional sources.--Mishae (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and The Scientific World Journal mean nothing to any of you?--Mishae (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete fails due to insufficient notability based on cited publication list and my own search of Pubmed. -- Scray (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find 100s of citations with ease on PubMed, probably 1000s if I tried harder. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep The Scientific World Journal is a scientific publication and therefore a reliable source.--Mishae (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the article subject received in-depth coverage in it? If so, please add the source to verify this, as one of the self-published sources was actually mislabelled as being published by The Scientific World Journal when it wasn't. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with GS h-index of 39, if I have correctly identified the author. Would nominator like to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. Not seeing any third-party reliable sourcing or in-depth coverage to establish notability of the subject. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you find when you click on the scholar link two inches above? Does this relate to WP:Prof in any way? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC).
 * It turns up a list of papers co-authored by "H Akaza". Is that alone sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Maybe I'm missing something, but at present, the article does not appear to satisfy the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG nor any of the basic criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What it turns up is thousands of reliably published sources that mention Akaza's works, some no doubt non-trivially, many more than GNG requires. To be clear, these are the ones you get from the "cited by 213" links on the search results, not the search results themselves. That link means there are 213 other papers that cite this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one of his works is cited 102 times, per Google search.--Mishae (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be doing a different Google search than the one I used, which returns citation counts of 213, 188, 179, 153, and 151 for his top five papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:PROF. Web of Science lists 137 publications with 1197 citations (top counts 68, 61, 50; h-index=19). This is about on the border of what we usually count as notable here (as usual, GS provides more inflated counts). And while the bio on Hindawi is not exactly self-published, it is certainly not peer-reviewed and just some info provided by the subject himself. In all, just squeaks by, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hindawi web site claims that its journals are peer reviewed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Oh yes, articles are definitely peer-reviewed. But such short bios are not, as far as I know. I wouldn't use it as a source, unless verified by other sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: the number of citations alone (probably) means Hideyuki Akaza deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Squareanimal (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2013 (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.