Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert Pallua


 * 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. Note that the article was cut down to a stub to get rid of original research/verifiability issues and needs rebuilding. However, the consensus is clear that the WP:PROF notability standard is met. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Norbert Pallua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No decent references ... if we are using WP:PROF, I am not convinced that there is sufficient notability for a Wikipedia bio here. Lesion ( talk ) 15:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any evidence of nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WoS reveals 291 publications, and his h-index appears to be at least 20. This latter figure should be sufficient to establish notability as per WP:PROF. Jinkinson   talk to me  16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of both WoS and the h-index are cautioned against on WP:PROF... Lesion  ( talk ) 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are cautioned in some circumstances (humanities, etc.), but this statistic is perfectly valid for cases like this (a medical researcher) where journals are the conventional venue for reporting research developments. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
 * To meet notability we need a few reliable, independent sources which discuss this individual at length. Currently, we have NY times (passing mention), an entry (comprising of contact details only) for a plastic surgery org, and an entry for the unit with which this person is affiliated, promoting surgical tourism on a site by the German tourist board. Lesion  ( talk ) 17:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. My WoS query shows >270 papers and h-index of 29. This exceeds our conventional threshold. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. Let me qualify my !vote by observing that the article is SPA-created and appears to be full of unsourced WP:OR. Much of this should be redacted ASAP (I will do so after first right of refusal by others), but his notability is clear. Agricola44 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC).


 * This is a biography of living person and simply stating that there is an h-index of whatever is not acceptable grounds to preserve the article. As I have outlined above, none of the current references are suitable. All unsuitably referenced content on living persons should be aggressively deleted. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a precedent over hundreds of AfDs that citations are independent evidence of notability and that the papers which are cited are authoritative – meaning that, in the absolute worst case, the article could simply be stubbed with some basic information about research contributions, places of employment, and so forth, as gleaned from the primary (cited) and secondary (citing) papers. WoS shows that >1,000 journal articles cite his work and such a figure satisfies WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep on clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC).


 * For everyone who keeps say this article should be kept because the individual has such and such publications, without actually looking at the state of the current article and its references, per WP:BLP this article has no suitable sources at all, and should be deleted immediately unless the author, or perhaps someone here who has voted keep, is able to provide one decent source. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted the poor state of the article above and deferentially suggested you have a go at fixing it. Taking your most recent comment as indication that you will not do so, I've now cleaned it up (stubbed). All material is properly sourced. Notability stands. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Kudos Agricola for having the stomach for such distasteful work. I have also removed some links that were still in the external links. I don't see why Wikipedia should be directing people to have plastic surgery by this person.
 * Personally I deliberately don't read bio articles regularly, I usually visit them only when an editor adds very undue mention of some quack to one of the articles I watch. In this case to Fordyce spots:

One of the techniques for treatment of Fordyce spots developed by Professor Norbert Pallua, who works at the Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand Surgery, Burn Center, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany, reported in the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery promising results with Micro-punch technique for the treatment of Fordyce spots.


 * Now it might just be assume bad faith and tall poppy syndrome, but I mentally think at this point, "hmm ... I wonder if this same user has written some pretentious, self promotional piece of crap about themselves?" Frequently, there is such a bio page, and often it ends up getting deleted. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is conventional for academic bios to have the subject's official uni page URL in external links. The others can be omitted, but that one should probably be restored. I'm a firm believer in "testing" articles through AfD because it motivates real scrutiny and those articles that survive are usually improved. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep -- I'm one of the main people cautioning against use of h-indexes and citation counts creeping into fields such as humanities, arts research, and some social sciences where they are not regularly (indeed almost ever) used in determining notability outside of Wikipedia. But there are some fields where they regularly are (CS, physics) and medicine is one of them. This author is a pretty clear pass on those accounts. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF and WP:HEY (thanks Agricola). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2014 (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.