The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems almost unanimous which makes it easy to close this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwunonso Nwabufo[edit]

Chukwunonso Nwabufo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of an early-career researcher who does not meet WP:NPROF. Twice declined at AFC for lack of notability but moved into mainspace anyway. Mccapra (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Advertising, Science, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sigh. Has only been publishing for the past three years, still a PhD student, an h-index of <10 in medical sciences... this is nowhere even close to a WP:NPROF pass. This is a good example of why people shouldn't try to write their own Wikipedia article, because now you get to hear a bunch of people who have never met you tell you that your achievements are insignificant, when you're actually doing quite well for the stage of your career you're in. Come back when you're tenured or when you get a profile in the Globe. -- asilvering (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the vote; however, your comment is not actually backed up by any factual evidence to support lack of notability.

  Your comments suggest that you have not taken time to evaluate the subjects profile as written in the article. A lot of factors are put into consideration when considering the notability of a scientist. You have failed to examine the achievements of the subject relative to his career stage and leaders in his field. This accomplishments of the subject are well above his career stage and/or peers and are more comparable to leaders in his field.

  At 31, the subject had already achieved the following leadership and scientific accomplishments:

  1. Contributed to the development of two approved drugs for COVID-19 and HIV during his tenure at Gilead sciences.
  2. Received over 20 awards including one of the most prestigious national awards in Canada : Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Award
  3. Editorial board member of prestigious journals including Drug Metabolism Reviews and Journal of Applied Bioanalysis
  4. Scientific leadership positions at the largest professional association for pharmaceutical scientists: Vice Chair, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Drug Metabolism Community of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
  5. Has significant media coverage

  These accomplishments are most prevalent to people at the top of their field in pharmaceutical sciences.

  If you feel that there are useful ways in which the page can be improved, please suggest but do not make generic comments that indicate that you may have not actually read the article in its entirety and/or lack domain expertise to evaluate scientific accomplishment in the field of pharmaceutical sciences. SamuelKC (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Contributing to the development of a drug is routine, that's what scientists do, work on teams to develop stuff. He appears to be one of the "grunts" doing the behind the scenes work. He's still a student, basically doing what any other student in his position does. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I feel a little less bad about having to vote "delete" now, at least. Thanks for that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems likely there are COI issues and/or the subject is writing a page about himself. As the others have said, he hasn't done anything sufficiently notable yet. This shouldn't be taken as a comment on the subject of the article or the editor who did most of the editing of the page (if those are two different people), who may well be fine individuals. JMWt (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly, @JMWt is basing his nomination on what other people have previously said and has failed to include any mechanistic and factual evidence to support limited notability for the subject. For example, what metrics do you use to define "sufficient notability"?

  It is my impression that the nomination by @JMWt is malicious and lacks any evidence to support his conclusion for recommending deletion of the article. SamuelKC (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate personal attacks or accusations of malice. I understand the notability criteria and the metric is the accepted level of academic work and academic prestigue needed to meet WP:NPROF - namely that the academic is at the very top of their field. You don't have to agree with me or my conclusions, but you do have to assume good faith - especially when the people you are interacting with are uninvolved other than making a judgement at AfD. JMWt (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any factual evidence to support the deletion of the article @Mccapra or is your primary reason for recommending deletion primarily based on other's opinion? A useful evaluation should be based on your own findings, data, and any mechanistic evidence to support your conclusion? SamuelKC (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has brought useful findings to the discussion; a conflict of interest is serious. Notability is taken as described above and below. What we seem to have is a smart student, working with much smarter people. I'd suggest you please read PROF and GNG by clicking on the blue links for each. The person described in the article does not meet any of those criteria; if you feel they do, please offer a reasoned explanation without getting upset with people. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Student awards and employer publicity don't add up to WP:PROF or WP:GNG notability. The promotional text and creator WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion don't help either. Given that the creator's initial edit summary called this "my personal Wikipedia page" it seems likely that there is an inadequately-declared conflict of interest here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was also declined in the AfC process, created anyway, nominated for speedy deletion, created again, and here we are. Should likely SALT after the AfD is done. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think delete and salt might indeed be the way to go here. Someone who insists a CIHR doctoral grant is "one of the most prestigious national awards in Canada" is wilfully misrepresenting the facts, completely misunderstanding the point, or extremely high on their own self-promotional supply. He'll be back. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's particularly egregious given that he's describing the CIHR CGS, which is explicitly less selective than the CIHR Vanier CGS. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is completely irrelevant that the subject is advanced relative to his career stage.

1. 43 citations on Scopus is 2+ orders of magnitude lower than that of the average professor in this field (fails WP:NPROF C1a).
2. Student-level awards are explicitly excluded from contributing to C2 notability: awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.
3. Only chief editorship of a major journal meets C8.
4. Only the highest-level position of a major academic society counts for C6.
5. There is no indication the subject meets GNG or C7. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd agree with the JoelleJay line of reasoning. He's not achieved anything we'd count towards PROF. GNG isn't found either, this appears promotional to help this person gain a foothold in the academic world. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the top 11% of 515 people means there are around 60 others like him; that's not notable. He's one of a large group of people. Top 1% perhaps, he's lost in the upper portion of the field of candidates. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the awards, publications, etc, will do for WP:NPROF. The only hope would be a GNG pass, but of all the listed sources, only one source is independent and non-trivial, the Good Nigeria profile. (The Star Phoenix profile has a highly promising title, "Young Innovators: U of S undergrad researcher investigates COVID-19's impact on people living with HIV," but it is actually about someone else, with only a trivial mention of Nwabufo.) I don't know Good Nigeria well enough as a source to speak to its reliability, but regardless, a single profile about someone's student performance is not enough for GNG. The academic job market is such that being an exceptional doctoral student, as Nwabufo seems to be, is simply the price of entry to the career. The point of comparison for an encyclopedia article is not "other graduate students who will apply for a Banting postdoc soon" but rather "Frederick Banting." This article is WP:TOOSOON by at least a decade. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2023 (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.