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. J04n(talk page) 00:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schöffski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There are no independent sources cited, and the article provides no evidence that the subject satisfies either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines on notability of academics. My general web searches produced Wikipedia, Twitter, pages on the web sites of various organisations that he has worked for or with (such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and University Hospitals Leuven), papers by him not about him, etc. Google Scholar found papers by him, but nothing about him. The nearest thing I found to independent coverage was an interview which appears to have been part of the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which someone has uploaded to YouTube. The author of the article, User:Patrick Schöffski, removed a PROD without any explanation. (Note: User:Patrick Schöffski tells me that he/she is not Patrick Schöffski in person, but his medical secretary.) Substantially, this is use of Wikipedia to publish a CV/resume. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see that User:Patrick Schöffski has now been renamed to User:Lieve Ons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as autobiography, but without prejudice to recreation if someon can prove notability. He does seem to be slightly notable although whether he falls above or below the line is unclear. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• H-index of 36 is probably a few standard deviations above the subset of academic-types that have WP articles. WP:AUTO is certainly frowned upon, but not grounds for deletion. Any problematic text can be fixed-up with disinterested editing. Agricola44 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 30. Please will nominator carry out WP:before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • That was unnecessarily snippy and also less helpful than it could have been. There's nothing "clear" about that at all. The PROF criteria are dreadfully complex and you've presented no evidence that the index score you give is in line with the PROF guidelines on what to exclude. Furthermore, PROF is a guideline and is trumped by policy, such the daddy of them all, V. So if you'd like to persuade people to agree with you, please will you expand on your comment without taking a pop at the nominator, who has acted in good faith and has explicitly said that they have fulfilled BEFORE. It would be nice if you'd apologise to James. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to James if James wants an apology. The WP:Prof guidelines have been extensively debated by many people in the past on its talk page, particularly WP:Prof#C1, see also Citation index and h-index. I have contributed to those debates. The guidelines seem clear to those who use them regularly. The nominator says "Google Scholar found papers by him, but nothing about him". This indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements of WP:Prof which says "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." Google Scholar shows how many scientists have cited a person's papers. It shows that the subject's first paper in the list has been cited by 332 other workers. If all the other cites are added it will come to thousands. Based on past precedent in this field on the numbers establishing precedent for notability (which appears to have provoked little dissent), [1] there is here a distinctly clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. If people find the PROF criteria to be dreadfully complex then perhaps they should postpone editing in the area until they have had the time to develop a greater understanding of them. Sorry to sound "snippy" but this misunderstanding of the WP:Prof policy guidelines is one that comes up repeatedly in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. WoS concurs with GS, with a citation list of 331, 260, 232, .... (h-index 36, "National Academy" territory, according to Hirsch) and MS-academic shows >1000 total citations. It is true that those of us who lurk here regularly have a roughly consensus view of the commonly-used test WP:PROF #1: either having solved individual high-profile problems (like ones that have their own WP pages) or having a general body of research that is highly cited collectively, i.e. hundreds of citations or a bibliometric indicator of such, e.g. h-index of at least 10 to 15. There is a subtle context regarding WP:V here in that, even if no other sources about a subject can be found, the published papers themselves have enough WP:V to at least stub an article, e.g. place of employment, title, professional area, etc. – this caveat is in the "notes" of WP:PROF. Schöffski very obviously passes the notability test. In cases like this, it is not uncommon for nom to withdraw the AfD, so that it can be closed quickly. Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- per Xxanthippe and Agricola's careful research on citation counts and overall significance to the field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (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.