Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel González-Gay


 * 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. Not terribly persuaded by the 'keep' arguments in this case (in many other AfD's where some of the 'keep' users commented, I find their input decisive, but not in this one).  Daniel Bryant  08:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Miguel González-Gay

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed "proposed for deletion". Fails to demonstrate sufficient notability beyond doubtful Pubmed criterion and unsupported assertions of fame via OR ("I am studying rheumatology and I can assure that Dr. Gonzalez-Gay is well know for his important research in Rheumatology"). I also suspect WP:COI issues due to its history via a SPA,. Tearlach 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this individual meets notability criteria at WP:BIO. Paper count isn't really valid as an assertion of respect in his field, but simply verifies that he exists and contributes to it. (Roughly, it's like saying a site meets WP:WEB for having 1 bazillion members!) Something more substantive than a blanket unqualified statement that he is "well known" for certain work needs to be presented, and I'm not finding much through my own cursory research at this point. -- Kinu t /c  06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. He has some widely cited papers .Stammer 10:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Rheuma student is a single-purpose account devoted only to this person, including an incoming redirect and a now-deleted image. If he's that notable, let someone neutral write about him.  It looks like vanity/COI to me. YechielMan 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable researcher. I'll take a crack at it. Bearian 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 'There actually are that many papers. It is true that some physicians publish a multitude of small papers on individual cases in obscure journals, but this is not the situation here. Just going by Google Scholar, which with greatly underestimate his work, because the bulk of it was before 2000, the most cited papers there are from American Journal of Medicine, a very important internal medicine journal, immunology today, the major review journal in the subject, and Arthritis and Rheumatism, a major international specialty journal. The other important journals like BMJ are also well represented. Scientist are notable by the work they do, and by the accepted principles of WP:PROF, publication counts in peer-reviewed journals and number of citations to them are key factors. The peer-reviewed nature of the publications is the secondary evidence. It is not like the web where counts are relatively meaningless because anything can be published. Let's see what else Berian finds.  DGG' 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I indicate on the talk page, the "number" of papers seems meaningless per WP:PROFTEST... as someone disciplined in science/medicine (i.e., thanks to my father), I know that inflated paper counts can happen. Peer-reviewed journal article counts are just that: an objective measure of how often one publishes. Granted, the number is directly proportional to the credibility of the research, but at the same time, I am hesitant to say that articles by the man should be used to gauge notability per one of the six criteria at WP:PROFTEST. Rather, articles about the man should be used... i.e., third party cites indicating why he is notable in his field, what his peers think of his work, how significant they perceive it to be in the field of rheumatology, etc. Some sort of WP:RS rather than just the PubMed listing count. -- Kinu t /c  06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm also a little troubled by the "number = importance" argument. Someone who wrote a single paper that revealed an HIV cure would be important; conversely someone could be a plodder who writes thousands of rather pedestrian papers and not be. The decision about "importance", as you say, needs basing in some third-party statement. Tearlach 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable enough for wiki standards Bulldog123 13:15, 7 May 2007 (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.