Deletion of Bernard Lewinsky

Comment: His contributions as a photographer do not pass muster because sourcing seems to be limited to a few one-off briefs in local or narrow specialty outlets, like http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/health&id=6297515 KABC-TV, the Los Angeles ABC affiliate, or http://www.jewishjournal.com/health/article/doctor_calms_radiation_fears_with_nature_photos_20090310/ jewishjournal.com. (I think sourcing requirements for photogs are more akin to those shown in articles on, for example Tina Barney, where coverage is in mainstream outlets or national publications, like http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE2D71530F932A35755C0A9619C8B63 NYT.) After a more detailed examination of his published research, I conclude that  #1 is also not satisfied. WoS shows 33 papers in the area of cancer with h-index 15. Of these, 9 of the 10 most highly cited seem to have been spearheaded by Melvin Silverstein, who was the corresponding, as well as first author. Lewinsky would appear to have played a supporting role for these. Although Lewinsky was first author on the 10th paper, it appears that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%28197403%2933:3%3C778::AID-CNCR2820330325%3E3.0.CO;2-T/pdf Munro Neville was the leader there. (It is a somewhat counter-intuitive convention in biology research that the ''last'' author is often the intellectual spearhead, which is the case here.) Without making this too much of a prolix !vote, one can proceed further down the list of publications, concluding that Lewinsky basically played supporting roles on the highly-cited papers. Down at the 18th paper (in order of citations) appears to be a study that Lewinsky led: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360301676901310 Lightcast: An aid to planning, treatment and immobilization in radiotherapy and research by Lewinsky and Walton, but this paper has only been cited 10 times since its publication 35 years ago. Citations rapidly tail-off after this point. I think these figures conclusively show that, while Lewinsky may be a good clinician, he is not a cancer researcher of any real note. Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: This is a ridiculously long discussion.  He's notable on multiple fronts.   is a valid objection, but it seems to me that the fact that he's Monica Lewinsky's daughter is actually damaging his notability per , which appears to be just on or over the line.  That said, I do think RS's mentioning his involvement in the Lewinsky affair should be considered, and have been demonstrated.  That for me pushes it past the line
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Notability is |not inherited though famous relatives.  For the purposes of ''this'' particular person and for this specirfic AfD discussion, IMO there should be no consideration of , whether he technically may squeak by that sub-guideline or not is irrelevant.  We all know why we're here discussing a man named Bernard ''Lewinsky''; because a very curious and very not-so-new "new" editor has a {{diff|Lewinsky|prev |437776217|very}} {{diff|Sexual_slang|prev|437323239|worrying}} {{diff|List_of_eponyms_(L-Z|prev|437325767|fixation}} on all things Lewinsky.  Practice a bit of  here, please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:DENY)

Comment: Passes rof#C1 with GS h index of 17 and rof#C3 on basis of professional achievements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)

Comment: per  and , subject completely fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics).  This subject would '''not''' have an article on Wikipedia were it not for the one-time 'fame' of his family member.  Take away all the current sources for that article that mention Monica and you have '''nothing''' with which to base this article.  Completely and totally fails Wikipedia:Notability and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:NPF||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: This is a truly bizarre AfD debate both for its length and passion. Afds of subjects with research achievements are determined on the basis of Wikipedia policy rof as interpreted by consensus of editors. By looking at such debates over the past few years one finds consensus that rof#C1 is satisfied by impact of independent citations measured by citation count. In regard to numbers, the precedent seems that to clearly satisfy rof#C1 400-1000 citations in the research literature are usually needed with an h index of greater than 15. Those with an h index of less than 10 rarely pass. There is no formal policy on this; it is just the way that decisions of editors have evolved over the past few years. Standards of notability for academics and scholars in the English Wikipedia are much higher than for some other subjects; garage bands, musicians or athletes sometime get by with only a handful of references. It is also not the job of editors of these pages to determine whether the conduct of the nominator or the subject's relatives is correct or incorrect. We only determine if the subject is notable from having been noted, and in this case it is clear from past precedent on rof#C1 that the subject has been noted sufficiently. There is also some 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P||WP:P||WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: It's fairly clear that he meets the requirements of . If you look at a http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Bernard+Lewinsky%22&hl=en&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1366&bih=667&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps Google Scholar search, you can see he has been involved in a number of high-level papers regarding cancer research and, thus, has a high h-index. He clearly meets the requirements of notability. We should be looking at him completely separate from the Lewinsky scandal, since nherited|notability is not inherited, but if we do that, it is easy to see that he is indeed notable. One of the leading researchers into breast cancer research in the world is obviously notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:I)

Comment: Per  and since notability cannot be "inherited" from a daughter who performs oral sex on a politician. Without that titillating detail, he never would have had an article as just a typical physician or an amateur photographer. In no way does he satisfy notability as a scholar, a scientist, or an artist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . I have seen AfDs regarding biographies with less significant coverage from multiple reliable sources survive the process. Even without his daughter, and her notability, he himself passes '''GNG''', and therefore warrants inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)