Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk (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) &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael J. Yaremchuk
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Repeat nomination, inspired in large part by the prevailing argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen. The subject of this particular article similarly fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF - he does not hold a named chair position anywhere nor has contributed to his field of study in any way sufficient to be immortalised on Wikipedia. The initial version of the article was a blatant promotion and most likely was created on behalf of a marketing agency once involved in promotion of the article subject elsewhere on the internet (I have been warned not to out it). After one nomination the article somehow survived deletion, but still fails any and all notability criteria for Wikipedia in my view. Hence repeat submission. — kashmiri  TALK  23:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. 18 papers on GS with over 100 citations passes WP:Prof, Nominator deserves a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Mere 18 papers with 100 citations are very low for someone with such a long professional history as claimed. I'd rather trust Jbhunely's calculations below. — kashmiri  TALK  12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment  Keep Calculating from GScholar his h-index is 50 and g-index is 88 with 380 433 papers. His top 14 papers have over 200 citations each. I refined of my search term (using MJ Yaremchuk rather than M Yaremchuk) and have come up with numbers I am more confident in H-index=44, G-index=80, Papers=253, Citations=7168, Avg Cites/yr=~205, Pub years=35, 18 papers over 100 cites. He has authored a textbook Yaremchuk, MJ. Atlas of Facial Implants. Philadelphia: Saunders-Elsevier, 2007 but I can not find any indication it is considered significant in the field. I do see several press releases and he is a columnist for HuffPo which clogs up searches. Still looking. J bh Talk  01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 14:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am finding lots of press releases about his work in Medical Devices & Surgical technology Week. They do not contribute to GNG but they do show that he is providing ongoing contributions in his field. There are a couple of articles where he is quoted in newspapers and a bit of trivia for the article that he was the reconstructive surgeon for Joe Thornton. Really nothing biographical out there but he meets PROF#C1 by his publications and per consensus in the previous AfD so I am changing my Comment to Keep. J bh  Talk  02:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to doublecheck whether the citations are not mostly self-citations? That's pretty common in academia, unfortunately, and for someone so strongly engaged in self-promotion as the subject this would be highly likely. — kashmiri  TALK  11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not digging through over 400 papers but his stats are so high I seriously doubt there are more that the usual number of self cites. He has, according to my report from the Publish or Perish software, 433 papers over 38 years with 9223 cites to those papers. His top 20 papers average about 20 cites per year. He averages 242 cites per year overall but only a little over 10 papers per year so even a first order inspection (not to mention common sense based on H) says he is not getting his numbers by self citation. As a comparison, one of the co-authors of his most cited paper WPA Lee, who is a Professor of Plastic and Recnstructive Surgery at The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine has h=32, g=51, 347 papers over 28 years, 3529 total cites, top 10 papers average about 10 cites. Yeah, this guy seems to promote himself more than I find tasteful for anyone in the academic or medical world but he is a major contributor to his profession and a long way from some fad "Doctor to the stars!!" type of guy. J bh  Talk  14:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I really wonder if that's indeed a lot. I run names of a few personally known doctors/professors of medicine in Google Scholar and get 764 publications by "E Mercuri" (yes, this is all one person), 1130 by "E Bertini" (again one person), 1,300 by "F Muntoni", 502 for "A Manzur", etc. Do they all deserve an article just based on the number of publications? I am VERY hesitant to equate plain number of publications with substantial contribution to the field. — kashmiri  TALK  18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well "E Mercuri" when you correct for there being two in similar fields (Euginio is an Associate Professor of Pediatric Neurology the other seems to be a geneticist) has H=38 and 457 papers over 48 years so maybe he has a long career worth looking at or maybe "he" is more than one person. "E Bertini" may be of interest his H=75+ (I stopped the query Google was getting annoyed) (The high citation rate may come from Eugenio Bertini of Bertini's Theorum so not one person either.) but both of them are in genetics and each field has differing citation rates, "A Manzur" is unlikely one person either as the search is returning papers on Dark matter and Glucocorticoids - wildly different fields. In any case all of those people may be worthwhile to look at for articles if they are indeed one person. With this subject at a minimum all of the papers which contribute t his H-index are in the field of plastic surgery and a scroll through the others looked like they were as well - there are other Yaremchuks in academia so there is a posibility of crossover in total citation count due to limitations of the profiling software and how much time I want to spend tweeking it but based on expending about twice as much effort As I did to figure out the issues with the examples you gave I did not find any issues with the Yarmechuk. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, no one it talking about total papers they are talking about total citations and citations per paper. See H-index ("") and G-index which are standard metrics for academics sort of like Impact factor is for academic journals. J bh  Talk  19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added several sources to the article talk page which might be useful in expanding the article.  J bh  Talk  14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The statement that the article "somehow survived deletion" is a stipulation that this nominator is unwilling or unable to verbalize the arguments from the previous AfD.  The points about "named chair" and "promotionalism" are well covered with a casual reading of the previous AfD.  I don't see any new information relevant to this AfD to be found in the alleged "similarity" to an ongoing AfD.  Everything was already covered six months ago.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a link to the previous AfD above, those interested in the arguments can easily browse there. The main argument in the previous nomination was that he was notable because of the high notability of the hospital where he works; however, notability is not inherited to which I hope editors here will agree. FYI, subsequent nominators have no obligation to prepare summaries of previous AfD's. — kashmiri  TALK  11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE B4 states, "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." Your nomination does not have evidence that you did that.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would scarcely say that unanimous sentiment to Keep (other than, of course, the nom) constitutes "somehow survived deletion." If the nom is truly wondering how the article possibly could have survived deletion, allow me to enlighten him: everyone disagreed with you, then as now.   Ravenswing   05:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read the previous AfD and try counting? Numbers are not that high, around the nursery age. For your kind information, "everyone" were mostly editors arriving there through Hullaballoo's page, with whom I had a clash about something else on his Talk page, and this had spilled onto the previous nom. — kashmiri  TALK  11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Well respected, significant scholar in the field. Passes point one of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any evidence? Or one of the WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments? — kashmiri  TALK  11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as nominator has added no new arguments since the last AFD. Also the nominator stripped back some content to make this look worse before nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My last edits to the article were in December 2015, your allegations of "before nominating" hardly holds ground. — kashmiri  TALK  11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, WP:POINTy nomination, very clear pass of WP:PROF, and the article's appearance of lacking independent sources is mostly because the nominator removed them rather than because they don't exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, Person does not pass WP:PROF that is; 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Thus do not satisfy WP:GNG. I wounder why vote for keep ignore the highlighted phrase. Where are these independent reliable sources? Where is compliance of WP:NOR and WP:SYN? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the enormous number of citations to his work is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
 * It is generally accepted that the NUMBER OF CITATIONS is NOT a measure of impact in the discipline. This was actually the rationale for coming up with more complex measures, like impact factor, Eigenfactor, h-index and others, some of which also look into HOW the article was cited, in particular by what other authors, by what journals and, also, by what publishers. There have been unfortunate cases bordering academic fraud where some (well-known) academic publishers incentivised authors to cite only from journals published by the same publisher, or required a given percentage of such citations (coercive citation). So, your assertion that bare "number of citations" is equivalent to impact is plainly wrong. — kashmiri  TALK  16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment is so wrong-headed that I don't even know where to start with it. First, what you claim is "generally accepted" is the opposite of reality. Second, "impact factor" should never be used to measure individual papers or the people who publish them, as many reliable sources report. Third, eigenfactor and h-index are basically just numbers of citations in fancier dress. Fourth, your insinuations of academic misconduct in a case where there is none border on being a major WP:BLP violation. And fifth, nobody is asserting that "bare number" of citations is what is relevant; rather, they're asserting that this high number in comparison with other academics in the same discipline shows a high impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the comment to which I responded. Then read it again. If you still see any "in comparison" or anything referring to this BLP, try to read it again. — kashmiri  TALK  09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the citation record of a chief at Mass General has been falsified? Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Harvard professor and Chief at Mass Gen with WoS h-index of 38 and >3,000 citations in one of the lower-cited fields in medicine (surgery) is conclusive pass of PROF c1. Nom and rest of the doubters should rather direct their attention to the growing spate of early-in-career academics (some listed below, if you're currently viewing this in academics' AfD) that are increasingly kept in AfD because of recentism and advocacy agenda. Agricola44 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
 * h-index of 12 in social sciences (Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen) could not satisfy many WP editors as conclusive for notability. Let us see the only indicator; h-index of 38 or 44 in medical and health sciences pass notability? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Conventionally, 10 to 15 is borderline. H-index is not "linear" in the way some people think it is, but is rather at least quadratic and 38 is above most academics on WP. It far exceeds PROF c1 requirements (his raw count is >3000). Your observations are much more applicable to early-in-career academics rather than senior ones at top research institutions. This will end in "keep" without question. Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC).
 * We should take in to account the differences of disciplines; medicine and health sciences, social sciences. Medicine and health sciences publication and citation trend can be seen in Web of Science where there are citation based indicators. Medicine related journals have impact factor of three digits. It is not rare. Social sciences in comparison have smaller single digit impact factors in few research journals. We need to be little bit realistic in setting any bottom. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there is a vast difference between h-indexes of 12 vs 38. This individual has >3000 citations to his work, which is larger than most academics on WP, including those who work in medicine and the sciences (Most science/medical papers are cited either only 0 or 1 time; see the review article The top 100 papers by VanNoorden et al in Nature 2014). Because this conclusively satisfies PROF c1, this article is certain to be kept. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
 * There is numeric difference between h-index of 12 and 38. We need to consider differences of disciplines; social sciences and medical sciences. Authorship patterns are also important to consider. Authorship in social scineces has no trends of including all research group members as real authors of any research article. It is accepted in sciences including health sciences. Single paper of a dozen authors definitely gets more citations. Citation patterns (stated above) by kashmiri  are also worth noticing. I don't know in terms of 'end in "keep" without question' and 'article is certain to be kept'. No need to say sorry. Nothing wrong to me if it is kept as final decision but only h-index of 38 in health sciences is not convincing in this case. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem unable to impress upon you that h-index of 38 shows more impact than most academics on WP and is likewise far above average in medicine. I'm retiring from this discussion. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 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.