Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Aguayo-Martel

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 no consensus. Discussion muddied by which name the subject uses, and the only real consensus is that the article needs work.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James B. Aguayo-Martel

James B. Aguayo-Martel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Apparent vanity auto-biography; no record of a previous AFD discussion on 04Jan2008, as indicated, nor on 01-03Jan. LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete: If this guy were as important as he said he is a Google Scholar search should have turned up things. It didn't. Also, poorly written vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete nothing on Scholar or Books, ghits barely confirm existence. The Jan 4 referenced was PROD, there was no discussion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment He may be using "James B Martel" professionally. At least, this is how Mercy San Juan has him listed.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Don't have time to look into this right now, but "James B. Aguayo" finds this Nature paper [1] with 98 citations in Google Scholar, which seems to be in the right area. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Still don't have time to give this the time it deserves, but the fact that he's the first-named author on a highly cited Nature paper which claims to be the first time NMR was used on single cells would seem to satisfy WP:PROF ("originating an important new concept, theory or idea") and inclines me to keep. Agree with Nsk92 & Lankiveil that clean up is needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Unsure at this point but leaning towards delete. It seems that he also goes under the names "James B. Aguayo" and "James B Martel". I did MEDLINE searches for both names. A medline search under "Martel J B" produces one article (cited 0 times) and a search under "Aguayo J B" produces twelve articles, written by him. One of them is the Nature article that Espresso Addict mentioned. Medline says that this article has been cited 174 times. The other 11 articles under "Aguayo J B" have much lower citation hits: one at 24, a couple at 10-12 and the rest in single digits. A GoogleScholar search for "J.B. Aguayo" produces similar results[2]: one top hit for the Nature article (99 cites), the next one at 19 cites and single digits after that. This does not seem to indicate notability to me in terms of WP:PROF. Also, in the WP article there are lots of claims made and no references or evidence to support them offered. Substantial problems with WP:V here, so even if the article is ultimately kept it would need a major revision. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Cleanup, the number of cites cited above seems notable enough for fields as narrow and specific as the ones listed in the article. It's a bit too glowing though, and needs a rewrite to sound more neutral. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 29 April 2008 (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.