Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Lutchen

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lutchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The few sources not from the subject's institution do not establish relevance.

Also, its creator has only ever edited this page, which, per another editor's flag, reads very much like a resume. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I am persuaded by the comments of other editors with respect to the notability of the subject and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominator is advised to read WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Thanks for the reference, @Xxanthippe. I will read it before making further nominations for deletion.

  Just because I cannot help myself, however, I would like to say in my defense that I deliberately selected the deletion option that gave other editors the most time to overrule my nomination, should my novice assessment be mistaken.

  Also, as someone new to new page patrol, just how seriously to take the various Wikipedia policies is often extremely unclear. When enforcement of written policy is so inconsistent, it is difficult to determine best practices.

  If new page patrol is just supposed to approve everything not in flagellant violation of core Wikipedia policies, it should say as much at the top of the volunteer description. I'd be happy to convey this myself if more experienced editors think it would be of value and can point me to the best place to do so.

  My ego investment, however, is very close to zero. So I have no problem simply letting my new page patrol rights expire if this is, at least at present, simply not a productive way for me to contribute to Wikipedia.

  Thanks (really!) to everyone who has checked and corrected my work —

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I think the role of NPP is genuinely ambiguous. This seems like a reasonable nomination to me. At the time of nomination: no notability claim, written like a resume, no secondary sources cited. I don't expect a NPP to be intimately familiar with every SNG. For next time, you know a little more about academic notability and so can calibrate your "nomination sensitivity". Suriname0 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, most of the claims people are using as support for their keep comments here were present in the article at the time of nomination. If you see that and think "no notability claim", what it demonstrates is that you are unfamiliar with what an academic notability claim looks like. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Suriname0,

  Thanks for taking the time to express your understanding!

  He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure @David Eppstein's comment here is directed at me, not you, and needs to be read in the context of our discussion here.

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was directed at Suriname0's incorrect "At the time of nomination: no notability claim". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I really don't see how this is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY. Thanks(?), though, for clarifying. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pointing out the incorrectness of a claim in a discussion is not incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine with respect to me, as someone that you know to have self-selected to train in an academic field characterized by intense disagreement among experts. However, absent additional context of which I am not aware, I find your comment unnecessarily rude. It's never awesome to punch down. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable.
  • This was not written by the subject but probably by a University PR flack who scrambled to get an article when Lutchen was announced as Boston University's interim provost. I can tell it wasn't Lutchen because no academic would ever write "PLUS One" instead of "PLOS One".
  • Lutchen is a fellow of two major biomedical engineering organizations. He won a major award from the third (I think he's a fellow there but I can't tell).
  • Google Scholar reports an h-index of 54, an i-10 index of 124 and 9606 citations. His rank and citation rate have dropped in later years, probably because he's been busy as Dean of Engineering.
  • Lutchen grew the biomedical engineering program while he was chair. He grew the engineering school while he was dean.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GS citations [1] look healthy (top five 512,357,268,261,256 and four more >200; and ~21 further >100). Boston University university provost and chief academic officer might also be significant though it appears only a temporary appointment. There's also at least one elected fellowship: International Academy of Medical and Biological Engineering [2] and the bio there states he was president of American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering. (His CV [3] might be easier to read than the article.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above that it was probably written in haste by some poor PR person, but it was properly submitted and accepted via AfC, so that should not influence us unduly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The citation counts and #C1 (which are always tricky to calibrate for different fields) and the IAMBE Fellow title and #C3 (I don't know IAMBE well enough to judge how selective this is) are both suggestive but not definitive for me. But I think the AIMBE presidency is unambiguously a pass of #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject does pass WP:NPROF. The current page needs to be redacted heavily as there is a lot of content based on primary sources and OR; however, AfD is not cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2023 (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.