Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Krilis (2nd nomination)

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. --Coredesat 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Krilis

Steven Krilis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability of this scholar is claimed, but goes completely unverified. Fails WP:PROF and largely violates WP:NPOV.

I did not find verifiable claims in the article that could be used to show that he meets WP:PROF. The article is, however, cluttered with POV and weasel-word statements ("made numerous discoveries that have greatly advanced...", "is at the forefront of medicine", "recognised as one of [...] the world's leading immunologists", etc.) Removing all the POV-laden parts, what remains is that S.K is a professor of medicine at an Australian university, who does research and publishes in scientific journals.

External sources I found are not convincing towards notability: Google Scholar shows that some of his publications are cited quite often (one is >200 cites), but judging just by these numbers can be grossly misleading. Also, there is an information page by his university, UNSW, with nothing particularly notable; a press release by UNSW; and he won an award issued by the same university (cannot be counted for notability, since not independent).

The previous AfD nomination 1 1/2 years ago resulted in "keep" according to closing admin, but maybe "no consensus" would fit better. Votes suggested that the article should be rewritten to be kept, but no such rewrite occured, just more unverified statements were added.

I propose to delete the article now. If S.K. is really such a renowned figure in medice, then sooner or later somebody will write a new, verifiable article about him from scratch. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Would need a complete rewrite to meet WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:PROF, and it's barely more than a stub. Assuming the editor's been properly advised already, there's no sense in nursing this thing along. They can always come up with some actual citations and rewrite it responsibly. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nomination for deletion is not an excuse to allow unadulterated crap in BLP. I removed the crap. Don't care whether he stays or not, but stubs are part of Wikipedia, and there is NO requirement to delete stubs. KP Botany 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite - Prof. Krilis is a genuinely notable academic, but this is a terrible article. No citations, no actual understanding of antiphospholipid syndrome (ah, its about blood clots! Eureka!), and peacock words galore. A reduction to stub status and then reconstruction with appropriate references and writing style could make this a worthwhile page. Euryalus 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And you edited it after I removed reems of crap--you should look at one of the older edits. Stunnin crap. I know an editor who might have some time to look at it, too. KP Botany 23:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, I see what you mean. I also notice the very early versions also had more actual biographical info in them, which was removed some time ago to make space for more glowing plaudits. Take out the facts, add in the opinion ... anyway, if it survives AfD I'll add a more meaningful summary of his antiphospholipid research. Euryalus 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; strong google scholar results. John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He has a lot of published work which seems pretty notable. I may end up revising this myself. Sci girl 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the below: anyone who wants more actual citation results than provided by Google Scholar can ask me to check scopus or WebofScience. I'd rather do it without the time pressure of an AfD. In this case 120 peer reviewed papers on scopus, , the highest--in PNAS, absolutely top-flight journal-- 920 citations, followed by 284, 195, 147, 116 , 111. . All of this very good, as normally the case for full professors at research universities. I've added them to the article. There has to be a better way to improve these articles that one at a time at Afd. DGG 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per all keep votes above. Lankiveil 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
• Keep clearly notable don't use afd for cleanup--Buridan 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, improper useage of AFD as well. RFerreira 07:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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.