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 no consensus. There are lingering and quite plausible concerns about having an article on a non-public figure who is famous mainly for his association with one event, per WP:BLP1E. As a general matter of principle, biographies on subjects that are still living and famous only for their connection to a single event are unacceptable, even if the content is (currently) positive. However, these concerns are balanced against equally plausible considerations regarding the subject's significance as a breast cancer researcher, which this discussion has failed to resolve adequately. The editors involved in this discussion are clearly struggling, and understandably so, to consider the significance of the subject's professional career in abstraction from his relationship to a highly politicized and emotionally charged public scandal. Therefore, this discussion is inconclusive. causa sui (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lewinsky[edit]

Bernard Lewinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a recently created article about the father of Monica Lewinsky, who is a doctor. I initially redirected it but that was undone and I think AfD is the appropriate place for this now. My basic argument is that Dr. Lewinsky does not meet the WP:GNG, which is to say he has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Some of the sources cited are not reliable, and most of those that are speak about Bernard Lewinsky in the context of the scandal involving his daughter.

Which is where WP:BLP1E comes in, also relevant here. Monica Lewinsky is mainly known for one event, but we have an article about her, appropriately, because it is the case that "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." This simply does not apply to her father, who is an oncologist who has had a couple of mentions of his photography in local press. It is not, and should not, be our practice to have articles on family members of people known for one event simply because said family members did interviews with the press from time to time, but are not otherwise notable. This should be a WP:BLP no brainer.

It's worth pointing out that the article was created by User: Kiwi Bomb--see here for my discussion with that user prior to listing this--a new user account which also created Lewinsky (neologism) which was subsequently deleted and restored. Previously the user in question was blocked for being a point SPA/assumed sock and then unblocked, at which time they proceeded to create this article on Lewinsky's father and link it to the sexual neologism article, also currently at AfD. I do not believe this user is editing in good faith, but rather is trying to stir up controversy since these articles connect to the larger "Santorum" scandal over another sexual neologism. In the process they are, in my view, doing harm to living people by pushing these articles.

Even if you reject or don't care about the provenance of this article, the fact is Bernard Lewinsky does not meet our notability guidelines so this should be deleted. I'm not opposed to a redirect/possible merge, as I had initially attempted, but at this point deletion is probably the best way to go given the circumstances. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: Kiwi Bomb was not blocked for any proper reason, and the block was reversed for that reason. Claims that Kiwi Bomb was a sock or violated BLP with the last article were amply disproved. I think that the above text gives the impression of an inappropriate attack. Please, settle this AfD on the merits of the new article. Wnt (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a point of order Wnt, it's a personal opinion, as is the idea that Kiwi Bomb was not blocked for any proper reason. One admin did the blocking, and two others (including me, somewhat indirectly) refused an unblock before a fourth admin did unblock. The righteousness of the initial block is very much debatable, and the question of whether or not the history of the Kiwi Bomb account is relevant to this discussion is up to all of the discussants, not you or me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the invocation of Robert's Rules was more of a flourish. As to the propriety of the block, I object strenuously. The immediate unblocks block reviews were (IMO) almost perfunctory and the original justification of the block has been totally vacated. The first article Kiwi Bomb created was decided not to be a G10 at DRV and an AfD looks to be on the road to merging the content. Likewise a SPI found no evidence (with the caveat that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) that Kiwi Bomb was a sock account--despite prior protests that the SPI was not a fishing expedition and ex post appeals to the individual checkuser. Likewise you have mischaracterized the discussion on Kiwi Bomb's talk page to include only assent to the block. If you feel the unblock was out of order, bring it up at AN/I. Otherwise the status of the original block only serves to make a rhetorical point on the AfD. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have said nothing at all about the KW talk page discussion so obviously have not mischaracterized anything there, I just described the course of administrator actions. I did not think your unblock was out of order, as I said at the time, I just thought and think it was a bad idea, and that another option I was pursuing before you showed up would have been a better one. But the debate about the block is basically irrelevant—my point above was about the overall behavior of the account, which is, to me, relevant to this AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note regarding my comment to Protonk: in no way, as should be obvious from the full post (where I noted, "Monica's dad simply does not remotely warrant an article in my view (and I hope that of most editors)") was my "not technically wrong" remark about the article, rather it was about the behavior of Kiwi Bomb. I don't think creating the article was a blockable offense, but I do think we should not have the article. I brought this to AfD based solely on the latter opinion, and I trust other editors to see that there is nothing "vindictive" going on here given the context. It's an interesting bit of hyperbole and vitriol though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, beyond meeting #1 for his research, he also meets #3 of the notability guideline for being a Fellow. SilverserenC 00:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with both of your arguments for notability based on WP:ACADEMIC, at least what you have so far. First of all, you offer no basis for your claim that he is "one of the leading researchers into breast cancer research in the world." Find a secondary source that makes that claim and you will definitely have something, but you can't just link to Google Scholar in order to satisfy criterion number 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. In order to do that you must show that Lewinsky's research "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The last (key) part is completely lacking right now, both in your argument and in the article which says nothing about his scholarship. Similarly you are not meeting the standard of the third criterion. Lewinsky is a Fellow at the American College of Radiology, but we don't know what that means. The third criterion applies to someone who is "a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor. Is the American College of Radiology a "major scholarly society," and is selection for it a "highly selective honor?" I don't know, but as you are hanging your hat on WP:ACADEMIC as the means to establish notability, the burden is on you or another editor who supports retaining the article to demonstrate those points and/or to demonstrate that Lewinsky's work "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." If you cannot do that then I think the arguments in favor of deletion clearly win out as notability will not have been established. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to throw these two sources out there, since I don't think they're currently used in the article in question. But my main response to your questioning about #1 and me saying that his h-index fulfills it is to once again point you to ACADEMIC, but to a specific section. The additional notes specifically states "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." This means that the Google Scholar link I gave above shows that he is highly cited and consistently so. SilverserenC 04:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, for the question about whether being a Fellow of the American College of Radiology fulfills the requirements of #3, I have raised this question here to determine consensus on that from those more knowledgeable about it. SilverserenC 04:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for asking the question about the Fellow title, I would not have even known where to do that. The prompt reply pointed to the ACR web site and noted that 10% of radiologists have the title of Fellow. I would hope that you would agree that this does not qualify as "a highly selective honor" and that we can agree that Dr. Lewinsky does not meet criterion three, which leaves you only with criterion one of WP:ACADEMIC. The two links you offer don't do much for me. The first simply mentions Lewinsky and some research he is doing and adds a quotation from him—frankly I have been quoted in newspapers to this extent about something I was doing and this does not demonstrate notability. The second article is framed entirely in terms of "here is something Monica Lewinsky's dad is doing." It never would have been written if not for the scandal, and I do not see it as demonstrating notability beyond the "one event" in any way. Finally, you need to explain, specifically, how the Google Scholar link "shows that he is highly cited and consistently so." Searching for someone on their name in Google Scholar brings up their publications, yes, but I'm not seeing anything in your link about how frequently and consistently he has been cited. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still discussing with the user, so i'm not putting off #3 just yet. Being discussed in reliable sources is what helps to meet the GNG. If he is being discussed in reliable sources for his cancer and photography work and not his daughter, then that means he meets the GNG. As for the stuff on Scholar, if you look at the bottom left of each thing on there, you'll see "Cited by" and a number. For example, the first one on there says "Cited by 456", the second is 436. The numbers on there are some of the highest i've ever seen for citation and they stay high (45 and up) for the entire first page. That's remarkably good and better than almost all of our other articles on researchers, I would imagine. SilverserenC 05:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see you are not actually "discussing" with the user in question with respect to number three. You asked a question, they gave (and continue to defend) an answer you do not like, and you are arguing with them. The question you asked was straightforward, you clearly are not really knowledgeable about the matter at hand (hence asking for advice), yet you refused to accept the answer (see here for those who want to follow the conversation). I find that telling, as you seem to be grasping at straws here. As to the citation issue, I'll admit to having no idea how this works for medical publications since I ain't no science guy. At the same time I don't take your "highest I've ever seen" remark as meaning much of anything, since I'm guessing you are also not knowledgeable when it comes to research related to oncology. What I do know is that, for the most cited article, Lewinsky had six co-authors or co-researchers (I have no idea who does the writing or how any of this works). None of those folks have a Wikipedia article, which is not a point that should be blithely dismissed with a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
Because I'm operating under the assumption that you, like me, do not understand research pertaining to oncology or publications about it, unless you can actually show me something that objectively demonstrates that Lewinsky's research "has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"--and this is the guideline--then I am inclined to assume that he's just done a good amount of research, like a lot of other doctors that don't and should not have Wikipedia articles, but has not made a significant impact. Again the burden is on you here to prove said impact, not just assert it. Your argument right now is basically "look, 456 citations for this 7 person-authored article, he is clearly a leading researcher in the field" which seems to be based solely on your subjective and not professional opinion.
Finally, since your whole argument for retention is based on this one point, I'm curious as to when and how you think the stuff that Dr. Lewinsky is notable for will make it into his article. It's not a trivial question because whatever he is supposedly notable for needs to eventually be demonstrated in the article, and currently there is nothing there. You might want to take a step back from using every argument you can think of to defend keeping this article and ask why you are even bothering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're going to have to explain how he doesn't satisfy notability as a scientist when he is one of the top breast cancer researchers in the world and a Fellow of the American College of Radiology, meeting two of the notability requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. SilverserenC 01:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion of Lewinsky being "one of the top breast cancer researchers in the world" is patently false. He is more correctly characterized as a clinician who has participated in some cancer research work, which has had moderate impact (WoS h-index 15). The most highly cited studies on which he appears as an author were led by Melvin Silverstein, himself a surgeon. Contrast this to individuals whom the cancer world does, in fact, recognize as its top researchers, e.g. Bert Vogelstein (WoS h-index around 175) or Arnold J. Levine (WoS h-index around 110). Cancer is among the most highly cited fields and I'm afraid Lewinsky's work is barely a blip. Vitals.com is neither a recognized nor reliable source for objective "academic ranking", so that may be the source of confusion here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Silver above where I question the notion that Dr. Lewinsky passes WP:ACADEMIC—I think you might need to elaborate on your invocation of that guideline and your assertion that "the man would be notable even without his relation to Monica." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion on whether or not he meets the policy, but personally, I feel that the above posters made their points pretty well. He passes multiple requirements for WP:ACADEMIC (1 and 3), which makes him notable independent of his daughter. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment says absolutely nothing about this page or its notability, which is the point of this discussion, and I hope the closing admin completely disregards your comment. SilverserenC 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you do hope the closing admin ignores entirely the WP:NPF and WP:BLP issues raised by myself and others. That would be helpful indeed to your attempts to keep this article. However, I choose to believe that most administrators will not simply disregard those issues. Some might even be able to hear the quacking of the duck. LHM 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misusing what WP:NPF is for. It means that, on articles about relatively unknown people, you should make sure to stick to the facts that relate directly to the notability of the subject. It cannot be used as an argument for deletion. Furthermore, there aren't any BLP issues with this article. The two sentences in the article about the Lewinsky scandal are directly about Bernard and his actions during it, connected to highly reliable sources. Other than those two sentences, the rest of the article is about the man himself and his career. Lastly, the user who created the article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject of the article. You have yet to put forth any credible argument for deletion. SilverserenC 03:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can repeat "you have yet to put forth any credible argument for deletion" over and over as often as you like. That does not make it true, and does not mean that you can either badger me into changing my view, or that the closing administrator will simply ignore the concerns that I, and others, have raised. LHM 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually trying to "badger" you into making a credible argument for deletion, but nevermind I guess. SilverserenC 03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are asserting "significant coverage in reliable sources" but not demonstrating it in any fashion. Some of the debate here will likely turn on whether the coverage is actually "significant," i.e. that it addresses "the subject directly in detail." I'm not seeing that, because the reliable sources cited are usually quite tangential to Dr. Lewinsky, and the ones that are about him are not really reliable (primary sources, a blog post, etc.). As to the merge option as I said I'm fine with that, and my thinking would be that some info would go to the Lewinsky scandal article and some could go to Monica Lewinsky. If you look at those you will see that Dr. Lewinsky is mentioned in both of those articles already, and honestly the additional information that would need to be included is minimal (the biggest chunk would be related to his photography, which seems rather trivial). I'd be curious as to what information you see in the article on Bernard Lewinsky that is important and would not fit into one of the other two, since this seems to be what is preventing you from supporting a merge. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're essentially saying that it wouldn't matter if Bernard Lewinsky cured all the diseases in the world, because he is related to Monica Lewinsky, he is non-notable? SilverserenC 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straw man, meet Silver seren. Mr. seren is interested in knocking you down. LHM 04:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly Tarc did not say that Silver, as anyone can see. His argument is that the reason this article was created matters, and that's a very legitimate point to make. Obviously you don't think it matters, but a lot of other editors will be inclined to call a duck a spade (or something) and realize that there is more going on than a debate about Dr. Bernard Lewinsky meeting WP:ACADEMIC. This article was almost certainly created not to add to the sum total of all human knowledge, but to force us into an annoying debate like this one. WP:DENY very much applies as a reason to delete this, in addition to the obvious BLP and notability concerns. And anyway it has not at all been demonstrated that the article subject meets WP:ACADEMIC, which is really the only theoretically legitimate argument for keeping I've seen so far. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way that the article was created doesn't matter. If the subject of the article is notable, then it should be kept. If the article is written badly or you think there is bias, then it should be rewritten in order to clean it up. But the creator being a sockpuppet or not has absolutely nothing to do with notability of a subject on Wikipedia and removing a subject because of that is perpetuating a bias. WP:DENY does not apply to the subject of articles or their notability and trying to use it as an argument for deletion is going against the purpose of Wikipedia. This discussion should only be focused on the notability of this subject and this subject alone, not on the person who created it, not on anyone related to him unless someone is trying to argue that it adds notability, because being related to someone notable certainly doesn't detract from notability of the subject themself. This discussion is about the notability of Bernard Lewinsky and Bernard Lewinsky alone. Trying to bring in anything else to say that it should be deleted is doing an outright wrong to the entire AfD process. SilverserenC 04:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the problem with you, is that you're too concerned with process, bureaucracy, and rules. Sometimes there are larger concerns in play than whether Person X, who completely fails general notability, may eke out a passing grade at some sub-notability guideline whipped up by some random wiki-project enthusiasts. Honestly, failing GNG and passing something like wp:academic is like failing out of an actual university but still getting a "degree" via correspondence classes. Also, keep in mind that these are guidelines and not policy; there are exceptions to guidelines, and this is quite solidly one of them. The Wikipedia has been getting trolled the last few weeks, and trolled hard. From santorum to lewinsky to dr. bernard here, we're getting played. Tarc (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of WP:ACADEMIC is the fact that academics are notable for their work and are, thus, unlikely to have reliable sources about themselves personally to meet the GNG, but that if they meet any of the criteria on there, then they are notable and encyclopedic subjects. The guideline specifically says "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable." There's no probably there or anything like that, if they meet any of the criteria, they are notable, period. If they do not meet any of the criteria, then it falls back onto the WP:GNG, which may show that they are notable outside of their work as an academic. SilverserenC 05:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're honestly too wrapped up in Rescue Squad-speak to get the point here; "Academic" shouldn't even be a consideration here, and as a simple guidelines, there are times where we can simply set it aside. Deny the troll, is all we should be discussing. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why need we have a standalone article on Dr. Lewinsky, since you refer to his notability only in terms of the scandal? Why not simply redirect his name to the scandal (or his daughter's name, either one) and let readers learn of his role in the scandal in the article on that subject? Of course the impeachment of Clinton was one of the biggest news events of the 1990s, but taken to it's logical conclusion your argument would suggest that we should have a bio article on every person somewhat connected to it. That would not be in keeping with our BLP policies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I differ. I'm not arguing or suggesting that "we should have a bio article on every person somewhat connected to it," only that in this particular case the subject of this particular biography is clearly a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography as a participant in the ongoing Clinton impeachment story. The implication that my opinion is anything else is the whacking of a strawman... Carrite (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the expanded article, and adding some more information from the interviews myself, I'm persuaded that Bernard Lewinsky's role in this story was significant enough to go beyond BLP1E. For example, he told CNN that Monica's lawyer William H. Ginsburg was his personal friend for 3-4 years previous, he became part of Monica's immunity deal, he set up her defense fund, he told CNN his phones were probably being tapped, he demanded an apology from Dick Wolf later on in 1999 - there's no way that he can be dismissed as a minor participant, as I'd ignorantly thought - he really had a prolonged and active role in this in defense of his daughter. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So basically the argument is that, if a man's daughter gets caught up in some huge scandal, and then he acts like most any father would, calls his friend who is an attorney, helps in her defense financially and via the press, and speaks out against people who have wronged his daughter, then we basically have to have an article about him? Sorry but that argument makes me want to gag—the spirit of the BLP policies would pretty strongly suggest that we don't "punish" marginal figures involved in scandal with a personal Wikipedia bio telling everyone more about a painful, shitty period in their lives simply because they love their children and help them in times of distress. The whole point of BLP is that this is not just an encyclopedia project but also a project which considers the morality of our actions with respect to people who are alive. The fact that I'm almost certain the original article was created to make a point and take a shot at the Lewinsky folks to advance some other agenda makes this all the more gross to me, but obviously that's near irrelevant to some here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think it's a violation of BLP to have a biography. Is there anything mean-spirited about covering some of the things that this man decided to tell the world media in order that people would know about the injustice done to his daughter? It's not like we're painting him as an ax-murderer - so far as I know the only thing I think of as "negative" in that biography is that he threatened to sue NBC (but never did AFAIK), and somehow I doubt that should even seem like a negative thing to you. He's already been through the media wringer - I really don't understand why you'd object to taking the massive coverage that's out there and creating an accurate article summarizing it with some sympathy for the guy. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it would also be best to quote the part of WP:ACADEMIC that applies to this: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." SilverserenC 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing this very point above Silver, and then you dropped out of the conversation. Again you are simply asserting that Lewinsky is "highly cited" (and/or that he has a authored a "substantial number" of articles with "significant citation" rates). You admit to not even knowing what the h-index is for Lewinsky, or how to calculate it, but you argue with certitude that the h-index is high. That's quite strange to me. How can you possibly know that if you don't know how to figure out how to calculate it, and given that these indexes vary across fields? This is a serious question central to the AfD: you don't know his h-index but you say it is high and that it makes him notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Why should anyone take your word for this? If you want to put this to rest, find a secondary source that identifies Lewinsky as a prominent, important researcher in his field. At the least, find an editor who knows this field who can attest to the prominence of Dr. Lewinsky given his publication track record. What you have now does not meet the burden of WP:ACADEMIC, no matter how many times you allude to that guideline.
As a critical, to my mind, side note, what you are doing here goes beyond the AfD issues and becomes problematic in terms of encyclopedia writing. I assume you are not a doctor nor even a medical student, correct? You really don't know how to interpret the research Lewinsky does and its significance, and you have found no secondary sources which help you with that, correct? Yet you are altering the article such that you turn Lewinsky into a notable researcher—near as I can tell you simply do not know if this is true or not, and you might well be misleading readers by claiming it is (I actually have adjusted the article now to tone down your claims). This is the kind of problem we run into when someone comes to an AfD determined to turn the article into something that will be kept (and I don't think that characterization is unfair). You start writing on a very complex subject about which you are not well informed, if at all, and you look to make this person seem more important than he very well might be because it serves the interests of keeping the article (I don't know, and I hope you can admit that you don't know either, how prominent Lewinsky really is in his field, but you have decided to say he is prominent—I remain agnostic on that question). All in all I think the approach here is a terrible, terrible way to write an encyclopedia and I find it disturbing that we find this kind of editing acceptable, particularly on a controversial BLP of someone of, at the absolute best, marginal notability. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. "I assume you are not a doctor nor even a medical student, correct?" Silver is an encyclopedia editor. The entire basis for wikipedia is that amateurs may write about complex or technical topics by standing on reliable sources. I don't think Silver's desire to find an h-index is going to be very fruitful (mostly because h-index is an exceedinly noisy measure and its inclusion in ACADEMIC is a critical error on the part of the community), but their editing is not colored by a potential lack of experience. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the basis for Wikipedia, Protonk, obviously. But I do not write about medical topics because I know nothing about them and am not remotely qualified to do so. Were I to do so, I could actively harm the project by giving bad information. We are all, for the most part, amateurs, but we generally write about things we have some knowledge on, wouldn't you agree? If we were talking about the notability of historians as academics here, I we would be making pretty firm arguments based on my knowledge, but I don't do that for oncologists because I'm clueless. I think Silver is also pretty clueless on this stuff yet is acting as though they are not.
Pointing out that another editor is in over his or her head on a given topic is not some egregious violation of the Wiki philosophy, it's common sense on an encyclopedia writing project. Silver is confidently making an argument that Dr. Lewinsky is a notable oncologist based on exactly one search of Google Scholar, which s/he basically admits they cannot fully interpret. If you don't think that's relevant here, and that my mentioning it betrays some sort of core failure to understand Wikipedia, then I guess we have very different views. If I believe someone doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to content, I'm going to say "I don't think you know what you are talking about" (well, usually a bit gentler than that). An encyclopedia written by amateur editors still must discuss the knowledge levels of those doing the writing on any given subject. If Silver doesn't know how to determine the notability of oncologists and is just arguing for Lewinsky's notability based on intuition and/or wishful thinking than that matters to this debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to lecture. I'm sorry. I just wanted to drag this discussion away from becoming a comment on Silver the editor, not to mention articulating a vision of wikipedia which does not comport with our core principles. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I am a molecular biology major, actually. And I have worked on a significant number of medical related articles on Wikipedia. My reason for stating that Lewinsky has a high h-index is because I can compare his citations to those of other, notable researchers who have articles and lower citations. I stand by my statement that his cites are some of the highest I have ever seen, compared to other notable researchers on Wikipedia. Calculating h-indexes is difficult, because you basically have to do a Google-esque page ranking style algorithm to determine it and it's difficult. But it is also a very good indicator of scientific importance in academic fields, which is why it is listed on WP:ACADEMIC as one of the passing criteria. SilverserenC 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) On a separate note, how many medical articles have you written? Though I suppose after edit conflict, you've just answered that question above. SilverserenC 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is exactly the point here Silver—you are almost certainly more qualified than me to answer questions about Lewinsky's notability as a researcher, but basically your argument boils down to, "trust me, this research is definitely notable." I don't think you are being disingenuous at all by arguing that, but basically I'm saying that I can't trust you and your "I've looked at some other researchers' cites and this guy's are really high so therefore he's notable" argument, especially in a controversial, marginal BLP. I'm sure you truly believe your argument and are being completely aboveboard (and maybe you are right!), but since the burden is on you to prove notability, and since there are other issues with this BLP beyond the question of whether this guy squeaks by WP:ACADEMIC, I don't think we should be taking your word on the question of citations. It's not a personal slight--sorry if I was a bit harsh above--and I appreciate your willingness to discuss and the work you are doing here, but the bar for these kind of articles needs to be high and we can't say "okay he's notable" on what to me amounts to more of a hunch. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the question at WP:MEDICINE to see if someone can run an h-index check for us so that we can get a specific number. But in the meantime, i'll just give you something else for comparison. Look here. This says exactly the amount of cites that two highly cited papers got. If you notice the years, you'll also see that the definition of highly cited has been going down lately. That is largely due to a lot of similar spread-out research and the fact that there are just so many more researchers now than there were even just five years ago. So many papers out there, so fewer citations overall for everyone. There's also the fact that once you get around fifth highest, there's a huge jump in amount, up to the 500 for the third highest one there. So, as that link says, for the 31 highest cited papers on cancer in 2010, the seventh highest one got 65 cites. Where exactly do you think 400 and some cites would land? Do you see now why I am calling them highly cited? SilverserenC 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better example. SilverserenC 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically Silver I think both of those links serve to not make your point, at least as I am reading them (very amateurishly). The most cited article by Lewinsky was published in 1996, and in the 15 years since then it has received 456 citations according to Google Scholar. All of the "highly cited" cancer papers in 2008 had at least 250 citations that year—the top six are all already more cited than Lewinsky's most cited paper. I would assume past research continues to be cited for a few years afterward at least--I could be wrong about that I suppose--so the most cited articles of 2008 might have 2,000 citations a couple of years from now. Additionally, you point out that the the definition of highly cited has been going down lately. Assuming that's true, the fact that an article written in 1996 still has not been cited as much as a number of very recently written articles would actually suggest that the 1996 article is not particularly heavily cited, i.e. because it was written at a time when there were fewer researchers and research was less spread out. This sort of thing is precisely why I have emphasized the importance of actually knowing what these citation numbers mean, because the links you deploy in your previous comment might indicate precisely the opposite of what you assume they do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, you don't seem to know how citations work, i'm sorry to say. First off, those amounts in the links are considered, at that amount, to be highly cited. Being continued to be cited later on just makes them even more highly cited at that point, but doesn't detract from the fact that that amount is considered highly cited.
Secondly, speaking in generalities, papers don't get continually cited. The reason why most of the records for stuff is about the year it was released is because that's where it gets all of its citations. Papers generally gets the vast bulk of their citations in the year or two after they are published, because science has moved on after that point and it doesn't look back. Sometimes it works the opposite, where you have a paper that gets very few citations when it is published and, years later, it is "rediscovered" because it has some parts of it that were never properly considered and can contribute to science at that time. Though that rarely occurs. No, almost all citations for papers occur within two years of their release, if not just the first six months, because that's the time frame that the information is relevant and useful to the scientific community. SilverserenC 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true; there are some papers which take on a totem-pole status, perhaps due to the small-p "political" influence of a famous researcher (I mean, friends, networks, grants, not Democrat vs. Republican). It can be annoying; people cite method papers from 20 years ago that aren't even close to what they're doing now because it's been further modified, which you'd never look up, just because "everybody cites that". But I'm not sure if that kind of fame is really what Wikipedia should pay much attention to. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but that's more of an outlier than anything else. I'm talking about the majority of papers written in the scientific community. SilverserenC 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well I'll largely take your word for it there Silver, with one caveat that I'll get to in a second. Citations are different in different fields, so for example history articles or books are routinely cited for quite a long time afterward. I obviously assumed that the time period was much shorter for science articles given how science works and stuff, but that a few years worth of heavy citing would be common for an important article. But you would know better than me.
I still don't think you've demonstrated that Lewinsky's paper was highly cited though, and here is the caveat, because as you say what constitutes "high citation" has been going down over the years. 450 citations might be a lot in 2008, but a 1996 article that received a few hundred in that year and then a smattering in the 15 years since to total 450 might not be such a high number. Or maybe it is--you seem incredibly certain, I simply don't know. Also, remember that Lewinsky only co-wrote (which may or may not matter) two articles with what you claim are high citation rates over 400. All the rest are considerably less cited. I'm not sure that adds up to notability as a researcher, i.e. "he did these two studies with six other people that got some attention, nothing else he has done in terms of research has made much of a splash."
Again all of this points to the easiest solution for you in terms of making a stronger case under WP:ACADEMIC—finding secondary sources, e.g. like the links you provided, which talk about Lewinsky's research as being important or highly cited or what have you. This would be very easy for me to do with a historian via book reviews: I don't know what the equivalent is for medical research, but I'm not seeing it yet for Lewinsky's work.
I'm not going to comment further for awhile since this page is already a novella and I'm in large part to blame, but I'll check back to see what you come up with. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for talk page info. And I didn't know you ran h-indexes. SilverserenC 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, will update. NW (Talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The h-index score is not 17, indeed it is considerably less (see below). Silver specifically asked about WP:Prof#C3 in this case and the response from multiple outside editors was clearly that Lewinsky's "Fellow" position did not meet the criteria of being a "highly selective honor" (and that even if it did that would not guarantee notability). As such you have no valid arguments for keeping. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the case for notability via h-index--a questionable measure to begin with--has fully collapsed now, and with it the only keep argument that had any possibility of being valid. Of his two papers that were highly cited, Lewinsky had 6 and 7 co-authors. Jorge E. Hirsch, who invented the h-index, specifically said one should split up the score for multiple authors. See our article on the subject here which notes: "The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. In the original paper, Hirsch suggested partitioning citations among co-authors" (that cannot be dismissed--it's the guy who came up with this idea and he said it right off the bat). Let's be generous and say that for all of the articles he wrote, the average number of co-authors was three (this is presumably conservative since his score of 17, if we go with the high end, was bumped up considerably by the two heavily cited articles which had 6 and 7 coauthors). So if, per the inventor of the h-index, Lewinsky should share his total score with roughly 3 other people, then his individual score is about a 4, and again that's arguably giving him more of a share of 17 than is warranted. I'm not pretending to be an expert on this stuff in the slightest (and I recognize this is a rough calculation on top of a rough calculation so it is very much a guesstimate), but that's apparently what the guy who made this up said we should do, and frankly it makes a lot of sense when thinking about group research and publishing in a field like medicine, as opposed to one article by one theoretical physicist.
So even if we decide that "h-index of 10 = notable enough for Wikipedia"--and I don't think that, but whatever--our back of the envelope calculations suggest that Dr. Lewinsky falls well short of the cut. Furthermore, contrary to Silver's claim, the "reliable sources" in the article do not at all validate the claim that Lewinsky's research is notable. Some essentially say, "hey, look what Monica's dad is doing," others just quote him offhand about something he is working on as is standard for "Mr. so and so who has some expertise on this says that..." type quotations in news stories. The number of people who have got their name in the newspaper via this latter method is ridiculously high and includes me, and I am no one of remote import. Point is, absolutely zero reliable (as in know-the-field of oncology) sources have been provided which suggest that Dr. Lewinsky is a notable oncologist, and his apparent h-index actually seems to hurt him in that respect.
As such, the already tenuous argument for notability via WP:ACADEMIC does not seem to have much of a leg to stand on (criterion three fell apart earlier). Obviously this discussion is about arguments not votes, so I would hope that the closing admin considers disregarding, to some extent, keep !votes which just nod in the direction of notability or speak specifically of Lewinsky as being a notable, by our standards, researcher per WP:ACADEMIC. That very likely is not the case, and in any case it simply has not been demonstrated to any degree whatsoever. But at least we've spent a lot of time talking about this, and I have learned something about h-indexes. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Nuclear Warfare did partition it. He says that he did so directly on the talk page. Thus, without partitioning, Lewinsky's h-index would be much higher than what it came up as. So 17 is his h-index with partitioning. And you don't understand how partitioning works anyways. You don't partition just by number of people in the paper, you partition by their ranking within the paper itself. NW accounted for this, so 17 is actually the reduced h-index. SilverserenC 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming "partioned" means I accounted for multiple co-authors in calculation of the number. I did not; I merely reported that coauthors existed when it was significant. NW (Talk) 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you just put the ranking numbers ([2/7] and such) just for reference? That's still useful. Though he was rather high in most of them as it was. Can you even calculate for rankings anyways? I don't know if that's a part of the ISI system, I had assumed you did it by hand, which was why it took extra long. SilverserenC 00:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, regardless of how this partioning stuff works, the score is not 17, and indeed is significantly reduced. And, no, Silver he was not "rather high in most of them," particularly for those with high citation numbers. For the three most cited articles, way ahead of the others with over 300, Lewinsky was 5/8, 5/7, and 7/9. For the next four--and everything after that was less than 100 citations--he was 2/7, 7/8, 8/9, and 8/10. So of the 7 articles with more than 100 citations, he was 5th of 8 authors or lower on all but one of them. Why even bother re-calculating the h-index? I find it impossible to imagine it's above 10 given the number of other people who worked on these (a lot) and the fact the he ranked lowly on the author list almost all of the time. In order for his score to be 10 or above he'd have to retain about 60% of his highest possible h-index despite having about 6 other authors for the papers that actually got cited and being low ranked in those papers 6 out of 7 times. I'm no scientist or math whiz, but I think his h-index is comfortably in the single digits, maybe around 3 or so.
Silver, can you do us all a favor and admit that this whole exercise has gone precisely against your argument? You went into this open minded and willing to hear whatever answer which was good, but now it seems that even if--and that's a big "even if"--we give a lot of leeway to your interpretation of h-index being important (many disagree with that and our policy says to use it with a lot of caution) and 10 being some kind of important line (that seems based on nothing), Dr. Lewinsky doesn't qualify. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have an article on him? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because the point is, we don't calculate the h-index by partitioning, as you say. If we did, a significant amount of the researcher articles on Wikipedia would be deleted. It goes against what WP:ACADEMIC specifically says about following the h-index. He meets criteria #1 with what his score is, no attempting to reduce it due to partitioning will change that fact. We do it based on the research that they are involved in and he is involved in high-level research that is heavily cited. That's all that matters. SilverserenC 01:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I understand you here. The guy who invented the h-index (!!!) says that when there are multiple authors that you should partition to calculate each individual's score. But he is wrong about that being the way to do it. Or he is right about that being the way to do it, but Wikipedia intentionally doesn't do it the correct way, we prefer to use an incorrect method (although nowhere have we written down that incorrect method! or indeed any method for calculating h-indexes that I can see! but it is totally the way we do it!).
Basically WP:ACADEMIC--which says absolutely nothing about how to calculate h-index for anyone (much less multi-authored articles), only that it "may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but [it] should be approached with considerable caution since [its] validity is not, at present, widely accepted"--is where we get our knowledge of how to calculate h-index for multiple authors, and that knowledge directly contradicts what the person who invented h-index says about these cases. This approach may seem strange to some people, but we are wrong on purpose in this fashion because otherwise we might have to delete some of our articles about researchers who are not really very notable. Isn't that about your argument or did I miss something? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that that is how h-index is calculated. As far as I know, there is no standard method for taking into account placement on different papers. All of the h-indexes that are run are done without accounting for that and it is still commonly upheld as notability under our rules. Furthermore, I highly dispute you saying that the references discussing Bernard are not sufficient. I find that there are more than enough that are either entirely about him or are discussing him in a significant enough length that it meets the GNG. That, combined with his h-index, not with either of them alone, is enough for notability. SilverserenC 01:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what the guy who invented h-index said about how to calculate h-index does not matter? Just give me a yes or no to that please, because you are pointedly avoiding that and basically just saying "we don't do it that way." That doesn't care a lot of weight for me because you have already admitted that you don't know how to do it, which is why you didn't do it.
I'm confident that if the guy who invented h-index said something that supported your view you'd be mentioning that prominently, but he said something that utterly contradicts your view so you are brushing it aside as though it does not matter. It most certainly does matter, and once that is recognized Dr. Lewinsky is suddenly not so notable looking, even under your own already questionable argument. Preventing that from happening in this AfD seems to be the most important thing to you, because when someone A) Tells you that Lewinsky's "Fellow" position is not notable; and B) That the h-index is lower than you thought, you simply ignore those points. AfD's are not about winning or getting one's way, they are about using discussion to get at whether an article belongs here or not, so when facts on which one bases one's position suddenly change, there should be at least some movement in said position. You seem utterly impervious to basic matters of fact which contradict your argument, which to me rather calls into question everything you have said here.
You're certainly being tenacious, but I think anyone reading this--I hope including the closing admin--can see that you've completely lost your core argument on the facts. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I argued the Fellow thing over there was for a separate issue of it leading to over-prominence of electrical engineers if no radiologists at all get in under C3. But that's a separate issue. The only one stating that the h-index is wrong here is you and you've admitted that you know nothing about it. While I may not know the math of being able to run an h-index scan, I know how it works and what to look for. I also know how we use it here on Wikipedia, because i've been involved in a number of AfD discussions where multiple users pointed out the h-index and explained it. For the most part, how the h-index works on Wikipedia is how it's used in the scientific community as it is. If the ISI program that Nuclear Warfare originally used had included the papers based on dermatology, it would have came up with the same number as it did when he ran the math himself, because the scientific community has no standard for factoring in prominence in multiple authors for a paper.
Therefore, no matter how much you argue otherwise, the h-index matters as it is used. Combined with the sources in the article, it passes notability requirements. I really have nothing else to say on the matter. If you disagree at this point, then no amount of arguing is going to change our difference in opinion and we should just leave it at this and let other people decide for themselves. SilverserenC 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but you did not answer my simple yes or no question as to whether it matters that the inventor of h-index advocates a method for authors like Lewinsky that goes directly against the method you are advocating.
As to the Wikipedia discussions about h-index you have been involved in during past AfDs--maybe those discussions were wrong (indeed that seems likely based on how you describe them). I am not interested in how Wikipedia thinks about the h-index of a multi-author piece, or what you think about it. I do believe that what the "inventor" of h-index thinks about that issue is incredibly relevant. Again, yes or no: does what Jorge E. Hirsch said about this exact kind of situation, multi-author publications, matter or not? (And I suppose, if not, why not?) That's a very straightforward and very relevant question which you are sidestepping.
I'll let you have the last reply here if you are so inclined, because you are right that we at loggerheads and there's not much more to say about it, but I think the arguments are at least fully fleshed out at this point for others to see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's not a simple yes or no question. If you're just asking my opinion, then I would say, yes, there should be a algorithm devised that takes it into account. How much it should take it into account, I don't know, because listings of orders in papers can also be extremely subjective in nature. And, on the other hand, if you're asking what the scientific community thinks of the creator's opinion? The answer to that one would be no, just in the basic fact that no one bothers to take into account the placement in multiple author papers. The reason why no one tries to take it into account is because of that subjectivity that comes into play. In science, you want to avoid being subjective as much as possible and I don't think you would be able to make an algorithm that takes into account multiple authors without some lack of objectivity.
So, to summarize in short, my answer is yes, I think here should be some method to take into account multiple authors. But there is also a good reason why it is not taken into account within the scientific community.
I don't know what you hope to gain from the question, however, because all that matters is how the scientific community does it. And if they do it in a method that's against what the author believes, then it doesn't matter what he believes int erms of us utilizing the h-index. We follow the community, not an individual. SilverserenC 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, so you're saying that articles about his work, his "medical practice", have no relevance on his notability at all? I hope you don't vote at many other AfDs on academics. Bigtimepeace is at least arguing with me based on the prominence of his academic work, your argument is just...wrong. SilverserenC 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1)A local doctor has turned to photography to soothe people who get a little nervous in the hospital, (2) In an only-in-L.A. confluence of national celebrity and pampered pets, Monica Lewinsky's father has announced plans to use his cancer clinic to help cure sick animals. These are small time pages that hardly denote encyclopedic notability. RxS (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this and this and this and this and this. It's not like he stops being a breast cancer researcher just because the Lewinsky scandal didn't happen. SilverserenC 03:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) A fluffy local TV report about his photography; 2) A completely non-notable, or reliable, publication with an undated interview about his photography; 3) A calendar announcing a tea-party that Monica Lewinsky's father will be at, along with his photography; 4) A local TV news story which isn't about Lewinsky but which quotes him; 5) An article about his photography in an at best marginally notable regional "ethnic" (or whatever you want to call it) paper, which partially frames the piece in terms of his relationship to Monica Lewinsky. (And your philly.com article above might as well be titled, "Look What Monica Lewinsky's Dad is Up To! He's Helping Animals!"
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel with those sources. None of the articles relate to his supposedly notable research. Collectively what we really learn is "Monica Lewinsky's dad is a doctor who likes to take pictures." This is joketime, bush-league stuff in terms of sourcing, and should be embarrassing for any ostensibly serious encyclopedia project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" applies. Bernard Lewinsky was interviewed at length on major news media about what - however absurdly - was seen as the great political issue of the year. His biography should provide an invaluable perspective into a very small but vicious sort of McCarthy era under the attentions of Kenneth Starr. There is some information to this end which I provided from the sources in the article but was reverted about. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Wnt--Dr. Lewinsky did not, in any way, have a "substantial" role in the Lewinsky scandal. The president did, his daughter did, the First Lady did, Ken Starr did, and Newt Gingrich did. Bernard Lewinsky got his daughter a lawyer and went on TV to defend her and chastise the press and the entire investigation. What he did was what any father would have done and it had no meaningful effect on the course of events. As to being "interviewed at length on major news media," I'm pretty sure everyone who appeared in major news media during that time was interviewed at some length about the Lewinsky scandal. As you say it was kind of the issue of the day.
That BLP1E actually means we should have an article about Bernard Lewinsky will seem counterintuitive to many editors, probably because it is 180 degrees from how we should be applying that policy to this case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So only the most important scientists in the world with an h-index of over 100 get articles? I think there's a lot of researchers we have to delete, practically all of them, we should get started. SilverserenC 19:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we should, but not before a. you write my article and b. I watch you receive a Nobel peace prize for your sarcastic badgering of every nay-sayer. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean Bigtimepeace's badgering of every Keep voter as well? SilverserenC 22:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fair to say that both Silver and I have been "badgering" people a bit here, or at least that one could plausibly characterize it that way. One could also say we are pointing out problems in arguments and/or prompting for more detail from those commenting. It's kind of a fine line. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing with people about their votes isn't badgering, or at least I hope not, since I do it often enough. On the other hand, people who follow a newbie user and vote their articles for deletion because they won't accept there's no evidence of wrongdoing... Wnt (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid to complete your thought there Wnt? Maybe you realize it's not a very civil thing to say? I nominated this article for deletion because I do not think it should be in this encyclopedia, as I've explained exhaustively. I'm sure everyone !voting delete here feels the same way. Had Kiwi Bomb created a worthy article after being unblocked, I would have done nothing. If you could do me and others opposed to your view here the favor of extending the courtesy of good faith, as I do to you, that would be terrific. And if you must come out and make an attack on motivations, just come out and say it...don't cut off your point with an ellipsis in order to avoid saying it directly. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote something I added to the article which Off2riorob took out (after all, it's so important to work on an article you're voting to delete ... at least, when it involves taking out the facts that made me decide to change my vote to keep it!): res ipsa loquitur. Wnt (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver, that sort of condescending sarcasm is the mark of a weak argument. My guess is that you're well aware that WP:PROF #1, the criterion in question, is routinely interpreted "in context". That is, a particular value of h-index that would be passable within a low-citation field would not be considered acceptable in a field with normally high citations. For example, we regularly keep articles with "low" h-index, e.g. the recent AfD of linguist Nina Hyams, who has an h-index of only 6. Often 10-15 is the rule-of-thumb threshold, but cancer is among the most highly cited fields and it is abundantly clear that Lewinsky's work is not among the notable advancements in the field. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • "Top 15% doctor"--and that's not actually what the article says, but whatever--is a meaningless measure and the notion that it applies to Lewinsky was put forward by a web site that does not constitute a reliable source. We have no idea if he owns a "major clinic" or indeed what a "major clinic" is, and regardless that has nothing to do with notability. There is not policy, anywhere, which says a h-index over 10 equals notability, and anyway that number is contested because all of his papers were co-authored and he was never a lead author of a well-cited study, meaning his score should be reduced from what was calculated. The notion that Lewinsky has received "significant coverage" is laughable. The longest articles involving him are all basically interviews about his daughter during the scandal, after that most of the coverage is local articles about the fact that he likes to take pictures and hang him in his doctor's office, which is one of the least notable things I can think of in the universe. Absolutely no "presumption of notability" is created from the sources and the burden is on those arguing in favor of keeping to demonstrate notability, not on those of arguing for deletion to demonstrate non-notability. You simply have not done that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - cancer researcher of limited note - with a coat rack wiki bomb attachment. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) - striking my delete as the article has been improved some. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki bomb? Who on Earth has the slightest stake in whether he gets more or less media attention this year than last? And how is it a coat rack to cover the message Bernard Lewinsky himself wanted to get out to the media? I don't get you people. It's as if you invited somebody over to dinner and he saw your wife all trussed up and ball-gagged, your idea to protect her so she doesn't embarrass herself. Let the subject of the biography speak! Is that so wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt I think Off2riorob's edit summary referencing a "wiki bomb" was related to the creator of this article, "Kiwi Bomb," whose name is very likely an anagram for "Wiki Bomb," particularly given that the account created an article on the Lewinsky neologism, which clearly seemed in response to the "Google Bomb" article about "Santorum." Anyhow. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my position. That the wiki bomb of the sexual Lewinsky (neo...) is the primary reason for the creation of this BLP about a cancer researcher of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that position, and do not disagree, I would suggest that the issue before us here and now is whether or not the subject is notable in their own right to have an article, and that getting into the background of the whos whys and whats already being hammered out in other venues will likely not be useful here. This AFD is already massive compared to most, and the additional weight of discussing the other issues is just going to bog us down here more. Personally, I don't really care why the article was created, my only concern is can we make a decent article out of what we have now that is compliant with notability guidelines. Just my thoughts, and I am not criticizing anyone's positions on those background issues as they are complex and serious.--Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what that has to do with the price of tea in china. There isn't even a tenuous connection between Rick Santorum and Bernard Lewinsky, save the fictional one asserted here. Protonk (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's really true Protonk. While it's fine to take the position that Nuujinn does that the provenance of the article doesn't matter, the notion that there "isn't even a tenuous connection between Rick Santorum and Bernard Lewinsky" isn't really correct. Obviously Kiwi Bomb first created the Lewinsky neologism article, they then added it to the sexual slant template, a place where previously there had been edit warring over whether to include the Santorum neologism--edit warring which was part of a huge, larger fight. So a brand new account creates an article about a naughty word associated with a Democrat and adds it to an obscure template that has recently seen a lot of action with respect to a naughty word associated with a Republican. I suppose one can say that's just a coincidence, but to say that the connection to Santorum and what's happening here doesn't even rise to the level of tenuousness is not really credible to my mind. Again all of this may or may not matter to those !voting here, but I don't think you can just dismiss it as a fiction. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think there is a connection, just to be clear. It is unfortunate that that connection is riling folks up here, when there's already serious discussions about the background issues in other venues, but I well understand why folks are riled up in general. But I like to divorce the motives of editors from the content, and I do think we have a subject worthy of a small article in this case. But that's just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have you looked at the depth of coverage or are you just reflecting the number of externals in the article - the subject is a cancer researcher and requires notability for that, not just twelve externals with his name in them - if you assert he is notable because of his involvement in his daughters scandal - this is a BLP one event. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP1E where the event is notable and Bernard Lewinsky's role was substantial. Now given that you believe the article can't be salvaged, that it has to be deleted, what explanation can you give for taking out the very material that made me change my vote from "very weak keep" to "keep"? [10] You know, I'd like to assume WP:AGF, but everybody keeps telling me that where Kiwi Bomb is concerned that the essay WP:DUCK is the supreme law of the land. Now when someone who is so eager to delete an article takes out the information that made me want to keep it, what kind of duck does that look like? Wnt (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your totally correct , the event you taklk about -Lewinsky scandal is notable but this person is not - a comment in the scandal article is plenty - voting in reaction to my position will not protect a not notable BLP in the long term. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To use another neologism, Lewinsky's lawyer - Bernard Lewinsky's close friend - did "The Full Ginsburg" for the first time ever. The amount that even the parents were in the public eye can scarcely be exaggerated. It's worth including these people as part of our core coverage of democracy, such as it is, in the turn of the century. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits earlier to imo improve the article - my edits were for that reason alone although I do still not support it at AFD as I don't see him a a notable primary notability cancer researcher. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct to say that citations vary with subject. Bio-med tends to have high citations, mathematics and systematic theology low. There is some data here [11] but I wish more could be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
comment - I struck my delete as the article has had some improvement and some additional asserting of notability and the wikibomb content weight issue has been resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More