Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ding: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sj221234 (talk | contribs)
74 edits
remarks - final thoughts.
Relisting discussion (XFDcloser)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{notavote}}
{{notavote}}
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Eric Ding}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ding|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 4#{{anchorencode:Eric Ding}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Ding Stats]</span>)
:{{la|Eric Ding}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ding|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 11#{{anchorencode:Eric Ding}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Ding Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|Eric Ding}})
:({{Find sources AFD|Eric Ding}})
Since an IP is now edit warring over a notability tag that's been on the article for a while, I guess it's time for AfD. This seems to me to fail [[WP:NACADEMIC]] as someone who has only won minor awards and has received only passing mentions in news coverage, certainly not the "significant" coverage we'd expect for [[WP:GNG]]. Quantity doesn't equal quality. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Since an IP is now edit warring over a notability tag that's been on the article for a while, I guess it's time for AfD. This seems to me to fail [[WP:NACADEMIC]] as someone who has only won minor awards and has received only passing mentions in news coverage, certainly not the "significant" coverage we'd expect for [[WP:GNG]]. Quantity doesn't equal quality. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Line 39: Line 39:


{{talk-reflist}}
{{talk-reflist}}
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' This needs more input by experienced contributors, not new accounts.<br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 21:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Eric Ding]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

Revision as of 21:17, 11 October 2018

Eric Ding

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Eric Ding (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)

Since an IP is now edit warring over a notability tag that's been on the article for a while, I guess it's time for AfD. This seems to me to fail WP:NACADEMIC as someone who has only won minor awards and has received only passing mentions in news coverage, certainly not the "significant" coverage we'd expect for WP:GNG. Quantity doesn't equal quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thsmi002: Fyi, since this caused a bit of confusion earlier, "speedy keep" is not the same as "strong keep". Speedy keep has its own list of criteria at WP:SK, and isn't something to be thrown around lightly. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FenixFeather: Thanks! Thsmi002 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a really hard one to analyse on WP:GNG grounds. Per WP:PROF, he is mentioned in several different papers, and is the lead on one or two of them with a bunch of citations. He's been name dropped in a bunch of different articles. He fails WP:NPOL. The article is so badly source-bombed and promotional that it's difficult to understand what exactly he's notable for, or how he would pass WP:NACADEMIC. I have no comment either way apart from the fact this at the very least needs WP:TNT, if not deletion. SportingFlyer talk 01:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though he didn't win his race for Congress, he did get double digit % votes, seemed to have good fundraising according to FEC.gov website for his PA 10th campaign. FEC filings for his committee also showed 3 unions endorsements. And Science seemed to have done an in depth profile on him [1], which conforms to WP:SIGCOV.
  • As for his academics, he has a first authored New England Journal of Medicine paper from 2009, and several first and senior author JAMA papers over the years, plus an H-Index of 62 (as of October 5, 2018)[2]. NYT did a 2011 in depth profile[3] and he had a few book chapter features over several years (e.g. this book chapter[4] was also detailed). Various independent credible sources. Recommend strong keep, but agree it can be cleaned up slightly.Dthut (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/public-health-scientist-hopes-take-his-activism-congress
  2. ^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
  3. ^ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/a-web-campaign-for-cancer-prevention/
  4. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=szPOcd_ai2QC&pg=PT37&dq=eric+ding+facebook+philanthropists&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=eric%20ding%20facebook%20philanthropists&f=false
  5. ^ https://bostonchamber.com/media/events/TOYL/2018/TOYL-honorees-list_2017.pdf
  • Delete?/Prof cites. I opened around half of the refs in the article, the coverage is mixed, from trivial to semi OK but based upon them alone I want to delete. I have a question mark in my vote because I can't remember how to read the PROF cites "count". So an explanation of what is a lot and what is little would be helfpul. Szzuk (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP His page doesn't mention it - but he developed several commonly used scientific methods not on this Wiki page. For example, the 'Isotemporal Substitution' model used in physical activity epidemiology - he developed it originally. And it's pretty well known as described in this paper's 2nd paragraph quote that called his original paper (by Mekary et al) a "seminal" work[1], which came from a systematic review of the 56 studies worldwide that have been arisen out of his method. Someone could maybe add this detail to his profile, though I agree the page should be cleaned up a little. I would pare down his awards list - maybe delete all the ones are that isn't the PD Soros and TOYL award, that someone mentioned above. But I recommend keeping his page. Sahiljain22 (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the third comment or keep vote from an inexperienced contributor in four days - what exactly is going on here? SportingFlyer talk 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer - its not an IP war. I know a few public health/medical research scientists have monitored his page over the years ever since 2014 when someone unscrupulous unfairly maligned and attacked him and his family (records under federal court). We just noticed the new deletion discussion and decided to chime in - but only on his scientific and public health work. Dthut (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Hijiri88 - I'm also NOT a random canvasser. For example, I'm a board-certified physician - and my username is my real name (I'm a primary care doctor). We are simply giving our scientific opinions. And nothing we said is some generic unsupported commentary - but rather discussion of Eric Ding's scientific work, and cite other independent reviews that objectively mentioned his work. Sahiljain22 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I never accused you of being a canvasser; I said canvassee. And how did you find out about this AFD? Do you know someone here off-wiki? Or Ding himself? If the latter, you should definitely read WP:COI: on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if someone, especially your friend, says you are an important leader in your field; standalone biographical articles require reliable, independent sources covering the topic in enough depth to fill out an article. Also, could you clarify if you have any connection, to your knowledge, to the article's creator, Milton129 (talk · contribs)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I watch the page. I have never worked with him. I have not encountered him other than once >10 years ago. I have no idea who Milton129 is - I did not create the paper. I'm removed any earlier unnecessary opinions. End of the day, I only chimed in to point out his scientific work.
  • Comment Dear Szzuk - the citation count that Thsmi002 mentioned in his/her 'keep' statement perhaps refers to his Google Scholar citation count and H-Index.[2] While there are differences in academic fields, an H-Index>60 is respectable. Though don't simply take my word - you may google 'what is a good H-index'[3], or read the entry on H-index which I have never touched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahiljain22 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Sahiljain22 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His H-Index as an independent author appears to be just 4, as a co-author with 100+ others it is 57. [2] I'm not sure what the wikipedia guidelines are with regard to authored material and co-authored. If he'd authored those documents solely there would be nothing left to discuss. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of an 'independent author H-index' being used in academia. Virtually all scientific papers have co-authors. Sole authored papers are almost unheard of other than op-ed/editorial pieces. And not sure what your value of '4' and '57' from your linked URL is referring... there is an 'Eric Y. Ding' who has 4 papers, but he doesn't have a Y middle initial, and that 4 is not an H-index value. H-index is not complicated - its the joint max of both citations/paper & # of papers, which one can manually eyeball in the citation-sorted list of pubs. Honestly, don't take my word, just find a random friend of yours who works in academia and ask him/her what a good H-index or citation count is. I'm not going to comment any further here other than say I think this article should be significantly condensed - and future edits should be vigorously enforced against fluff. You guys seem diligent and should all police it. best, Sahiljain22 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-018-0691-3
  2. ^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TQ1na-MAAAAJ&hl=en
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+good+h-index
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input by experienced contributors, not new accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Ding&oldid=863608608"