Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideyuki Akaza (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hideyuki Akaza
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no reliable independent sources. It has a publisher's resume (not independent) and claim of one paper being much cited, for which the source is the paper itself. It claims he has published "more than 17" (how many? 18?), but fewer than 20 published papers is not a lot, frankly. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - no factual description how exactly this person is notable and no independent coverage. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this is worthy of further investigation. He is the head of what seems to be a very important research organization at Tokyo University. The translation of the English pages describing the organization is not fantastic, but there are more details in the Japanese-language sources. I found via a quick search that he is also the lead editor of the latest edition of the Japanese textbook on Urology. I haven't looked at any guidelines about what makes a researcher/doctor/author notable, but on the face of it I think this is worthy of a proper examination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments by (based on h-index of 39) and  and  (based on top citation counts) in the 2013 AfD.  These numbers were good enough 2 years ago and they can only have stayed the same or gotten better since then.  See WP:PROF -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof as per first AfD. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. After the ping, I checked the citation record again. With 18 papers in Google scholar having >100 citations, it's an easy pass of WP:PROF. I'm not convinced that the presidencies listed in the article are enough by themselves, but they're also corroborative evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2016 (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.