Laurent Schwartz (oncologist) : Shellwood ( talk ) 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:ANYBIO fails basic notability.  WP:AUTHOR and WP:LISTBIO .  The sentence about his being oncologist and scientist is not sourced.   Scientist of what field?  "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST , in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines".  A list of his alleged writings are not sources, but just an embedded list.  This should also be deleted on the other languages where it appears.   One is the French encyclopedia, and one other language that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation for it.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is a mess, but the person is notable.  The discussions in previous AfDs are worth reading.  For his credentials as a researcher, see this Google Scholar search .  See this PubMed search .  See this search at Nature .  He is affiliated with Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris , 149 avenue Victoria, 75004, Paris, France.  For passing WP:GNG , see the references shown as external links in the corresponding article in French, fr:Laurent Schwartz , including multiple articles on reliable broadcast outlets and newspapers.  For international coverage, see this article in Le Devoir , published in Montreal: Blanchette, Josée (2017-05-05).  "Un docteur pas ordinaire" .  Le Devoir (in French) .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those citation links aren't really helpful since they don't summarize anything comprehensively, and merely being affiliated with a hospital isn't something to contribute to notability.  You can get their citation profile on Scopus though: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri? authorId=56264158400 They have an h-index of 27, which looks to be more in the average realm for citations (especially after a mature career) rather than the "'highly-cited" requirement of WP:PROF#C1 .  The highly-cited category for clinical medicine falls closer to  to the 90-100 mark if we follow what sources say rather than individual editor opinion on citation metrics.  [7] NPROF says, When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?  At least in terms of citations, they don't really have that kind of punch.  KoA ( talk ) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, the article in French is a little bit better, but it still doesn't add up to a convincing argument for notability.  Athel cb ( talk ) 17:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still sorting through what's over there a bit before giving a ! vote, but even though we don't make decisions based on what other language wikis do, it is worth noting that article also has similar tags on notability issues.  KoA ( talk ) 17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned the French article because sometimes an article in the home language can supply a lot more information.  (For example, I was editing the article on Michel Darluc today, and whereas the English version was worse than pathetic, the French version had plenty to say.)  In the case of Laurent Schwartz, however, incorporating all of the French text wouldn't help much.  Anyway, I incline towards delete unless someone offers to do the necessary work.  His publication record is reasonable, but nothing very impressive.  Athel cb ( talk ) 18:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my above comments on not passing WP:PROF , and I didn't find sources that do discuss him from Eastmain's comment or the French article to be substantive for GNG.  KoA ( talk ) 13:27, 19 May 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.

Discussion outcome: delete