Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Salmons


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Salmons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The PROD was disputed on 7 December, and since then no attempt has been made to improve the issues with the article. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF, and while there is a claim that he "was awarded for the development and use of the first implantable muscle stimulator" no reliable sources could be found to even verify this, let alone demonstrate that this has made a "significant impact" in any field. SudoGhost 19:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliably described as "a leading authority in the field of medicine and biomedical engineering," a claim corroborated by quotation in the NY Times and extensive GScholar presence. No substantive reason for deletion advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "A leading authority" means absolutely nothing, every puffed up person and business in existence is described as "a leading authority"; that does not satisfy a single notability guideline. Failing every single relevant notability guideline is a "substantive reason", so "no substantive reason" isn't going to cut it; articles have to demonstrate notability, and this one doesn't even come close to doing so.  Vague assertions to being a "leading authority" leaves much to be desired as far as keep arguments go, and does not contribute toward the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the claim that the individual is "a leading authority" was not written in The NY Times, but here, in a piece that reads like a poorly written ("He has written five other novels, which he is hoping publish") press release by an author who will write "whatever the story...know someone I should feature?" Even ignoring that fact that "leading authority" doesn't show notability, the NY Times (assuming I'm looking at the same one) is trivial coverage, briefly quoting him, but does not collaborate any "leading authority" claim. - SudoGhost 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is utter crap, and your mutilated "quotations" substantially distort the materially they are excerpted from. You clearly have been involved in a personality conflict with another editor involved with this article, but that in no way justifies waging war on the article subject. The article does not state that its subject received an award for "the first implantable muscle stimulator, but that his PhD was awarded for his work on that subject. That claim is likely supported by published scientific work like this repeatedly cited scientific paper, which can be found offline and which you have apparently not checked. The phrase "leading authority" is used in hundreds of Wikipedia biographies, as well as used regularly by highly reliable sources like the NY Times -- and, despite your histrionics, being quoted by the Times on a scientific subject is generally evidence of an academic's stature in their field, contributing to notability. You have reduced a cited writer's comment to gibberish here; what she actually posted was "I'm the JC's Business and People editor. Whatever the story - start-ups to successes - I want to know who's up to what in the community. Know someone I should feature? I'd love to hear from you, so please send me a message." This is hardly undying prose, but in no way supports your insinuation that the author writes indiscriminate puff pieces. And you provide no shred of justification for disregarding the subject's extensive record of scientific publications, as well as such other strong indicators of stature in his field and notability as editing at least one book in his field for a major academic publisher. I am sure my disgust is conspicuous here, but the extent to which Wikipedia, particularly in the deletion process, tolerates, and too many editors encourage the thoughtless disparaging and ridicule of people of genuine achievement repulses me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments civil, or keep them to yourself. Instead of attacking others, how about you back up these claims or actually show how this article is notable, or how it meets a single notability guideline?  This is a promotional article created by a person with a noted conflict of interest, and lacks any sourcing that demonstrates any shred of notability.  I never once even hinted at "disparaging and ridicule" towards the article's subject, so that's a pointless rant that does nothing for your comments.  Please do not confuse "this is not notable" with some form of disparaging; it isn't.  Professors have publications, that's nothing unique; ignoring that I did not "disparage them", that is not notable unless reliable sources have indicated that it is.


 * The article is not notable, short of you demonstrating otherwise, it does not belong on Wikipedia, no matter how much you attack other editors. If my analysis is "utter crap" then where is this NY Times source that you claimed shows that the article's subject is "a leading authority"?  The Times never comes close to saying anything like that.  Merely being quoted by the Times is trivial coverage, and does not contribute toward the notability of a subject, it never has on any BLP, there's no reason why this one would be different.  Don't insult someone by saying the reason they nominated an article to AfD is "not substantive" and then further insult them when they refute that; you're not doing yourself any favors, only making your rationale look very weak. - SudoGhost 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per what? There is no "career achivevement", there is a bunch of fluff that falls short of WP:PROF; sources in the article do not show notability, the article does not meet any of the notability requirements. - SudoGhost 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - Parts of the article seem to contradict fact, and I am led to wonder if the subject of the article hasn't been editing. There are a great many claims in this article that are not proven and are completely unsourced. It reads like it was written by his agent. I am also pretty sure that "the first implantable muscle stimulator" was called a "pacemaker", making this article even more dubious. Impressive claims require impressive sourcing, and this article has no such sourcing at all. Completely fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the article itself was created by his publishing agent User:AndreaUKA of UKA Press, as revealed in Sockpuppet_investigations/AndreaUKA/Archive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Weak delete - I'm not entirely up-to-speed with the drama that has surrounded this "set" of articles so perhaps my reading of things hasn't brought me to the same place at Sue Rangell (above) but I'm still inclined to suggest deletion. I'm seeing some (though not a lot) of coverage by the subject, rather than of the subject. The one article I could find about the subject was this article from satirical pseudo-science publication the Weekly World News. Hardly a WP:RS, certainly not WP:MEDRS. Ha ha. There are a couple of passing mentions of him in New Scientist magazine, but nothing we could consider "significant coverage". Of course, he has written some books but they are not extensively cited (not because they are unreliable, but seemingly because they are about fairly technical, niche subjects). I see merit in Carrite's suggestion that he has had a "sufficient career" to justify a claim of notability, but I can't see a lot of sources that could verify that career, which I think is a problem. I'm more than open to being convinced, though, so if someone has sources they think should be considered, please go ahead. Stalwart 111  04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I wasn't strongly in favour of deletion anyway, but comments/sources from Tokyogirl79 and DGG were enough to convince me that there is enough to keep this article, even if my position is still "weak". Stalwart 111  01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Over 100 published articles appears notable. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dare I, that be the first to ask - where? Stalwart 111  05:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few of his journals to the article, but I can vouch that there are a TON of them. From what I can see, they're all released in peer-reviewed journals. I'm sourcing them, but I'll admit that I'm not sure what, if anything, that might have as far as impact goes on notability. Does that make him more notable or influential of a person or does it mean that he's just very prolific when it comes to writing journals?Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought Mrfrobinson meant 100 articles about the subject (which would have surprised me), but I see he meant by the subject, which was my initial concern anyway. Have changed my !vote anyway, as per my comments above. Stalwart 111  01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry should have been more clear, I was referring to articles by him. Should also be noted that he listed listed as the primary on a lot of the peer reviewed articles I found, not just listed as a secondary or tertiary adviser. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All good mate - a misunderstanding on my part. Stalwart 111  22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Question. I'm seeing where some of his work is being cited in some textbooks such as this one] from Tectum Verlag and this one from Wolters Kluwer Health. I'm not as familiar with WKH, but Tectum Verlag is supposed to be a peer-reviewed academic publisher from what I can remember of it. He might pass WP:PROFESSOR with some digging? He looks like he's one of those guys that is cited often, but isn't really ever written directly about. (Except for by WWN, lol.)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see more citations here:, , ,, , , , , . This one mention in New Scientist sort of refers to him making some sort of breakthrough with rabbit muscles. Since he's an older scientist, there's a very real possibility of a lot of mention of him not making it onto the internet. If we can find more to show that his research has "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", he could pass part 1 of WP:PROFESSOR.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * His muscle stimulator is mentioned in this scientific journal.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: He's received a fellowship with the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and was (or might still be) the Chair of Medical Cell Biology at his current university. I'm not too savvy with that, but isn't that considered to be a relatively high up position ala part 6 of the professor stuff? ("highest-level elected or appointed academic post") Not trying to be difficult, just not sure if this is high enough or if that university would be considered prestigious enough. There is the "Emeritus Professor" title, but that's something that can often mean several different things in academia. (IE, being a prestigious thing or just meaning that he's retired.) I'm just a little leery about this one because while his work isn't really talked about nowadays, his stuff is coming up as references in various academic texts of the past and present. He's fairly close to passing, but I'm not sure if he passes 100%.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This German journal entry in a Georg Thieme Verlag textbook states that he is a pioneer of one of the things he's done (my German is very poor but I believe it's in relation to his electronic neuromuscular stuff).Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment He only has to pass one of the WP:PROF criteria. It's possible he passes via 3. (is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor) As a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, this might qualify. This page details the requirements for that. Not sure he passes 5. (holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research). He was a full professor at Liverpool, which is a major UK university, but the post appears to be as an ordinary professor not the holder of a "Named" or "Distingished" chair. Professor Emeritus is a title given to all full professors in the UK when they retire. Having said that, in his day, full professors were fairly rare in the UK. Now it's a much more common rank. I don't think 6. applies (held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) This tends to refer to really high posts like Vice-Chancellor, Provost, President etc. of a university or the presidency of a major academic society. If his research has been described as "pioneering" per the Georg Thieme Verlag  reference, then this might fulfill 1. (the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline). It would be good to have a second source affirming the pioneering nature  of his research. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Addenda re "impact". The New York Times article confirms nothing in that respect, one line describing him simply as a "researcher" at Liverpool + a brief quote from him. The number of papers published in journals, books edited etc. is in itself not all that relevant. That's what all academics do. It's their job to write them, and a lot of them. Using sheer numbers is like assessing whether a surgeon is notable because of the number of operations s/he's done. What's really critical is the number of citations by authors other than the subject. Note that most of the citations in Google Scholar to Salmon's paper mentioned in another editor's comment above are in other works by Salmons, but GS also tends to underestimate citations because it only checks works online. Does anyone here have access to Web of Knowledge or Scopus? They're much more reliable as citation indexes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've just found several more descriptions of his work as "pioneering" in several reliable sources,including:
 * Skeletal Muscle: Pathology, Diagnosis and Management of Disease (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
 * Surgical Research: Basic Principles and Clinical Practice. (Springer, 1998)
 * Neuromuscular Aspects of Sports Performance (John Wiley & Sons, 2011).
 * I'd say this now passes via WP:PROF Criteria 1. (the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline). Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets several of the WP:PROF criteria, (and also GNG, which is an alternative). I am not prepared to say that the nomination was irrational. The editor who wrote it has entered a number of biographies, mostly for authors published by a particular small publisher; the article on the publisher and several of the bios have been deleted as non-notable, an opinion in which I concurred every time. Many of their other bios have problems, some severe--both a inadequate references, and excessive promotionalism. I am checking all of them, & those I cannot fix adequately I will nominate for deletion. The version of this bio at the time it came here was done very poorly, with extensive lists of even minor publications. But even a highly promotional editor can sometimes write about something really notable, and write in such a way that the problems are fixable. This article is one of them (and so are a few  of their others). Fellow of a major professional society has consistently been held an indication of notability. in practice, almost all professors at major research universities have been considered notable (Liverpool, being in the Russell group, counts as a research university) though that's not yet accepted as a formal criterion. I am reluctant to trust adjectives of distinction by colleagues when out of context, but several of those here are in sufficient contest to demonstrate notability. I prefer to go by objective standards, which in the science means citations. and in this case there are 4 articles with 100 or more citations in G Scholar (in spite of their publications in the 70s and 80s, when GS coverage was incomplete).
 * I'm much less tolerant of promotionalism than I used to be. Writing low-grade articles with a COI does harm to everybody: the encyclopedia, the subject of the article, and the reputation of the author. I'd advise the ed. to get advice at AfC or elsewhere to avoid further problems. But I'd also advise the nom and the delete commentators to look a little beyond the article, to look at the actual subject.  It's the subject that has to be notable. If one really wants to do it, it is possible to construct a plausible argument against almost any possible sourcing, and lose one's balance. (it has been known to  happen to me also; enough of my recent AfD nominations have been closed as keep that I need to think more carefully before nominating).   Voceditenore and Tokyogirl are the ones who dealt with this correctly, by fixing the article.   DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with DGG with a lot of this as far as the nomination goes- I can see where it'd raise an eyebrow enough to where a nomination could be justified. I can also see where it'd be hard to search for sources because so much of the stuff that would show him as being notable was buried under a mountain of journals that he wrote. (I didn't think his own journals showed notability, so I'm glad to hear a definite on this that I can tuck away for future article work.) That a lot of his biggest work happened pre-Internet and before it became more common to see any science or medical talk in the news didn't help much either. Thanks to the hard work and editing of Voceditenore to bring the article to its current status, it looks great and notability has been established.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources that make him notable for his published work are not buried under a mountain of stuff. They are readily available. See my comment below. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep - per  DGG. I think this is another example of how an article can be saved by running it through the AfD process. This boorish, uncited, unsourced puff piece was turned into a decent article. TokyoGirl really did a good job here, somebody should barstar her. (I already have). This AfD is what Wikipedia is all about. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely, in fact I just "barnstarred her" (sounds so crass... ha ha) for her excellent work elsewhere. She's on a role! Stalwart 111  01:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof with a Google scholar h-index of 26. This information is easily found by clicking on the link at the top. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep per WP:HEY - visibly improved. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (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.