Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ding

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. Consensus to keep, though it has been pointed out that the article has issues that need work. Tone 04:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]

• Speedy Keep - per WP:PROF#1 based on citation counts in Google Scholar [1] Thsmi002 (talk) 03:14, 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]

• 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 , 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). NYT did a 2011 in depth profile and he had a few book chapter features over several years (e.g. this book chapter 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]

• COMMENT He was recognized in 2012 with the Ten Outstanding Young Leaders (TOYL) Award from the Boston Chamber of Commerce. Recent TOYL award winners include members of the city council and Congress like Joe Kennedy III, Seth Moulton, and the unopposed incoming 2019 Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. Maryam Hu (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: The following two comments were from contributors making their first and third edits to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer talk 20:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, 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 I'm neutral, but the three SPAs above look like either socks or off-wiki canvassed !voters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:46, 9 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. 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', 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]

• Comment I was originally going to stay out of this AFD because it's a complete mess of an article to go through, but it seems like this AFD has just been overwhelmed by people who have been canvassed here. Can keep editors provide a few (just 2-3) independent, reliable sources that cover this person in significant detail? Quality matters more than quantity on Wikipedia, and let's not make participants in this AFD have to go through the WP:REFBOMB that this article has. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe what User:FenixFeather is trying to say is WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep The article is rather a mess, managing almost to bury the subject's strongest claim to notability under a mass of what experienced Wikipedia editors tend to see as largely promotional detail masquerading as notability. However, the subject's h-index of 65 would be stupendously high in most fields, particularly for someone who is still only 35. In the subject's field of research, in which papers with 100 or so authors seem to be common, this is obviously not quite so rare an achievement but I am still inclined to regard it as fairly comfortably high enough to judge the subject as notable by meeting WP:NACADEMIC#1, particularly given that several of the papers with hundreds of citations either have the subject as lead author or as one of only four or five collaborators (or both). Looking at the article and some of the available sources, I think it quite likely that the subject could also be shown to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 - though doing so would require the subject's campaigning and advocacy activities to be treated more carefully and from quite a different angle than is currently done in the article (and, however odd it might seem, with rather less emphasis on the subject). However, the subject's recent political candidacy, while worth a short sentence in the article as a verifiable point of interest, effectively adds nothing to the subject's notability - particularly as the subject did not win his primary. Finally, a small plea for the (at least apparent) WP:SPAs - this is just the kind of WP:AfD which is likely to attract people with only a very indirect connection with the subject but a substantial respect for them. Every remark I have seen from them above suggests no (at least conscious) WP:COIs and a genuine (if inexperienced and extremely intermittent) belief in building the encyclopedia. PWilkinson (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but shorten Agree with above, the subject is notable, but the article length is way too long, unreadable and biased, so the article needs to be significantly revamped/just straight rewritten. Parts like this need to be removed: "was recognized in The New York Times", the political campaign endorsements and funding, the awards being stated both on the infobox and article, and repeated full title Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal. If kept future editors should read WP:NPOV. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (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.