Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Aronsky


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael Aronsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Aronsky is an opthamalogist who does lasik surgery. Nothing about him makes him niotable. He does not pass the general notability guidelines or notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a member of American Academy of Ophthalmology meets WP:ACADEMIC #4.--Mishae (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Merely being a member of an academic organization with thousands of members does not automatically make you notable. Pax 07:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a fellow of the AAO would perhaps meet ACADEMIC#4, but being a member just means that he's paying his dues. GScholar lists some articles with a smattering of citations, but not coming close to what is needed for ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What is a difference between being a member and being a fellow? By being a fellow he also paying his dues. Am I wrong?--Mishae (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A fellow is a member who has met some additional criteria related to his/her knowledge or experience. In some fields/organizations, being a fellow is an indication of distinction and we presume notability (ex: fellows of the IEEE). In medical specialties, even being a fellow is often not an indicator of distinction (ex: fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics are simply board-certified pediatricians). For this organization, the difference does not seem to matter, because he is not a fellow. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What about text book chapters? By that HE MEETS WP:ACADEMIC #1 since not everyone writes chapter books, at least not an ophthalmologist. I might be wrong though, but I never saw a book on optometry as much as on psychiatry.--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, writing book chapters is a much less significant contribution than authoring "several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education" as criterion 4 specifies. Can we even track down how many/which books we're talking about? EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be something that you and Randykitty should talk about.--Mishae (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with DGG below. Writing book chapters in this field is much important than writing an article. What usually happens if a high-profile researcher accepts to contribute a book chapter is that they hand it over to a (grad) student, who does most of the writing with guidance from the researcher, who also normally vets the final version before submissions. Also, book chapters are often (but not always) only reviewed by the editors (i.e., not really peer-reviewed, like journal articles are). Book editors in STM sometimes have a hard time finding chapter authors, exactly because chapters don't count for much on your CV or when you're up for tenure or promotion, so many people see it as a waste of their time. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I think Randy has it exactly right. In science, the writing of book chapters is not normally regarded as being anywhere near as important a writing peer reviewed articles. There are some fields of the humanities where it is otherwise--in early medieval history and some related esoteric fields it's the main mechanism of publication. But not in medicine.    More generally, "not everybody does whatever"  does not necessarily  prove the ones who do are notable.   The author of a major book even in science or the editor in chief of a major medical textbook is notable. I note, additionally, that a canned bio using terms of praise that does not even list the specific publications is not really good evidence of anything. The authors of even chapters in recent major medical textbooks are generally listed in worldcat. He  is not listed there.   But I tracked them down in Google Scholar: he has a total of 4 publications-- Three journal articles, cited by only 10, 1, and 0 other papers respectively, and  a chapter in a minor review series, cited by 5, which must be the "book" that was intended.  And  is of course also right about the significance of Fellow.  The firm of physicians needs a better PR agency to write its web pages.      DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:Prof and the extension we use for academic physicians as leaders in their field. user:DGG is right about peer-reivew articles >> textbook chapters/"authoring textbooks" which can mean lots of things. BakerStMD T&#124;C 19:01, 27 March 2015 (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.