Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutz Heinemann


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lutz Heinemann

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike  [Talk]  18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met.Uhooep (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine,  and Germany.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored.  Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much.  However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Week keep, for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My !vote is "weak" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (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.