Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Bryan (scientist) (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Bryan (scientist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this academic has any claims to notability. The references are from his employer or references to acadamic books he has writtent. Nothing here supports notability and searches yeield nothing better.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 *  Snow keep per the last AfD just 18 months ago. I assume the nominator didn't notice it, since it cited several very clear claims of notability? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is very poor. We need third party independent sources not stuff they wrote themselves. This reads like an advert and tries to make medical claims based on poor sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fails as an academic. Assistant professor, not full professor. Prolific article author. I counted sixty-five articles, but nothing notable. As a book author, he fails, no reviews. Sounds like promotion for tongue scraping scheme. Rhadow (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup after trimming the spam from this article not really anything left. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way are statements like "He received an undergraduate degree in biochemistry from the University of Texas at Austin", "he studies nitric oxide restoration in humans", and "Bryan is Co-Founder and Nitric Oxide Scientist at HumanN", spam, ? To paraphrase the last AfD, the subject is a clear pass of WP:PROF based on the fact they have authored dozens of papers that have been cited over 100 times, including several Nature papers. In other words, there are several thousand third party independent sources have discussed his work. The fact that they are not currently cited in the article is no reason to delete it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way is a ref like this spam https://www.humann.com/neogenis-labs/ User:Joe Roe? Did you look at the ref in question? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spam? It's a dead link on the subject's company's website – so what? Even if it were spam, I don't see how that justifies removing whole swathes of the referenced, uncontroversial biographical details, or deleting the page. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup from a commercial website trying to sell a scam. And trying to use Wikipedia to promote said scam. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Further comments So the fact that they have published a book is presented as evidence that he is notable. I get dozens of requests to publish books. This is an active and well known issue within publishing. One of the publishers of one of his book "VDM Verlag" appears to be vanity press / running one of these publishing "scams". Basically how it works is they hired "book finders" who are paid by commission. They take whatever an "author" submits and publishes without any editorial control. Than their are a bunch of libraries who buy in batches who make up their primary customer base and they do print on demand. The authors do it for vanity and get little money. As costs are kept very low and libraries agree to buy these the publisher can still make enough as printing books is simple so cheap. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Secondly we do not have an independent source noting that they have published a significant book... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PROF, as argued at the previous AfD, with 22 papers currently having 100 GS citations or more. I cut a paragraph of promotional content sourced to an advertorial. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as last time. And if had actually read the previous debate, he would have noticed that "assistant professor" is an inaccurate description of the subject, who is (as was already described last time) "an industry researcher with a courtesy title". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Substandard claims. Other than stating he's a scientist who happened to author or co-author 3 books, the article doesn't present any notability. Brandmeistertalk  23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per XOR&#39;easter - Morphenniel (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Add to the list my name of people that don't understand retrying the same case. A quick GS check shows >20 papers having >100 citations each...conclusive PROF c1. Is there some suspicion that those papers are from someone else with the same name or that there are some other such mitigating factors? I don't see that there are. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per prior AfD. An acceptable and sourced stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am intrigued by the claims to notability from the publication of cited papers. Let us clear, the job of an ademics is to do research and publish papers. That is not a measure of notability. A bus driver does not become notable by driving a bus, neither does an academic become notable by writing papers. Nothing here suggests he is notable for his role in his field. I can still see no valid ground for asserting notability. Perhaps those wishing to keep could specify in detail which elements of the relevant notability criteria are met by which specific assertions.  Velella  Velella Talk 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is important that someone clear-up your misunderstanding on this issue. Nobody is saying that publishing papers makes this person notable. Notability comes from the fact that his work (his papers) have been noted (cited), a lot. The heart of PROF criterion 1 (which is the spirit of several other types of notability guidelines, as well) is that a person is notable if their work has caused others to take note of it (any by extension, them) in a sufficiently conspicuous way. Citations are that indicator. Now, for this case specifically, Bryan seems to have >20 papers having >100 citations each. If you look at the corpus of intellectual citations through standard databases (mostly GS and WoS), that's pretty high and indeed exceeds our usually WP thresholds for demonstrating that PROF c1 has been satisfied. So, published papers and citations to those papers are very different. The first is not a basis for a notability claim, but the second is. And, in this case, the claim is easily satisfied. Hope this clarifies matters. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (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.