Talk:Derek M. Yellon

Edit request

I would like to update the page from the previous version to the updated one I posted earlier this year. It was rejected but I don't understand why, the information is supported. Grateful for any help.ProfYellon (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 10-JUL-2019

  Clarification requested  

1. Kindly provide a WP:DIFF of the edits along with the reasoning for their implementation.
2. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  12:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References

edit request

Thank you for this information. What I'm trying to do is remove the previous text entirely and replace with refreshed and more robust information and references. This has required a complete revision of the text rather than small edits here and there - we re-structured the information in a more organised manner. Is this possible or are edits just meant to be minor? While the ethos of the article is to highlight Prof Yellon's work and place in the field of cardiovascular research and the revised text retains much of the original article, the format is changed and there are multiple edits as a new piece almost entirely.

Many thanks, Sara ProfYellon (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply 21-AUG-2019

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, kindly state each specific desired change in the form of verbatim statements which can be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described including the exact location where the desired claims are to be placed. Finally, reasons should be provided for each change. An example edit request for how this is to be done is shown below:

Edit request example

Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." Using as the reference: Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text and the placement locations.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed deletion of article

I am nominating this article for deletion. A quick search yields no significant notable information for the subject. There are no significant [1] articles, in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. The subject is not notable at all where a Wikipedia article is merited. A more significant concern appears to be that this appears to be an article created, either by self or by payment, for (self-)promotion. A review of the article history demonstrates a substantial focus on quarternary sources, e.g., where the subject has been mentioned in isolated sentences or in appendices. Of even more serious concern is that tags highlighting possible COI and concerns of notability to have been summarily removed by this single purpose user.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The whole thing reads like a puff piece. Or something extracted from a CV. WP:NOTE for me.Fortnum (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Puff piece

Very deeply concerning that that the article tags have been reverted to make it appear that this person is notable, in a obviously frivolous puff piece. The Wikipedia guidelines on notable academics are quite clear. See WP:PROF. Scopecreep has argued rather frivolously about some index of publication to argue this chap has notability, disregarding the entire WP:PROF notabillity guidelines. It is categorically mentioned that H-index is not considered a metric of notability, and moreover being widely published may get you a good private practice, it does not get you a Wikipedia article. The logic appears this chap is notable for being a well-published academic in a university, by which metric all Ivy league professors would have their own Wikipedia page. The subject has listed a few things like being on scientific committee of which there are many, and being a lead investigator etc that there are literally thousands of in Britain. I am sure there are many thousands of graduates from South African Universities with Pharmacology. The article, written by the academic himself or his staff, clearly demonstrates lack of WP:notabillity by the fact this is an orphan article, there are no claims nor any support of notability, and the versions through the creation clearly demonstrate this is designed to boost the person's profile and does little else, ie, this is article is more about promotions. There has been discussion to this end in the past so far as it was proposed and supported that the article be deleted.

Lastly, it is very poor taste to revert a longstanding editor's real concerns by labeling them disruptive. I gave Scopecreep the couresy of informing him of reversion and have given the logics in edit summary. I expect the same courtesy. I am going to revert this edit to re-institute that the subject does not met WP: notability guidelines. I will take this further if appropriate logic is not provided. Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think it is non-notable take it to Afd, and argue it out there. scope_creep^Talk 13:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am hoping the article will not need deleted. This has been discussed in the past and the same concerns for which the tag has been placed was reiterated. Hence article for deletion discussion is not the right place. I can see you are very inexperienced in both editing wikipedia and in handling conflicts, therefore instead of engaging you in an edit war I am going to ask for comments from a third party. I have left your edits as they are because I do not wish to engage in an edit war.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion request

This is a self-created article by the subject of the article (or his secretarial staff). As previously noted, A quick search yields no significant notable information for the subject and points to this wikipedia article as a primary source. The subjects claim to notabillity appears to be being an academic in a well-known university and having had a large number of publications (although high quality publications, e.g., Science, appear lacking. There is a single Nature review from quite a while ago). There are no significant [2] articles, in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. This person does not pass the "average professor" test as suggested in the WP:PROF guideline. Furthermore WP:PROF guidelines are clear on notabillity criterion. Specifically see here and it is clear that "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Moreover, user Scopecreep appears to suggest H-index count was high, disregarding the fact that it is specifically mentioned as being unreliable in the WP:PROF guidelines. This in itself is concerning that wikipedia is being used as a mantlepiece badge, ie, this appears to be a puff piece. There are no significant [3] articles, in books beyond self-authored publications. Similar issue with JSTOR and scholar. The subject is not notable at all where a Wikipedia article is merited.

The article uses a number of odd references, of which when you scrutinise appear to be general notes and documents of records. I am not able to see anything in these to see if, how or why this person is notable.

A more significant concern appears to be that the article creator has taken issue (as clear in the edit summaries) with the scrutiny this article has been subjected to. I have no idea what communications are ongoing off-wiki, but removal of tag of concern without discussion and personal attacks are uncalled for. Moreover, normal fruitful wiki collaboration would have seen a substantial response to the above talk. I am going to recuse myself from this article after a request for 3rd opinion is addressed.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)