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 Delete.Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bernstein

[edit]
Robert M. Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like an advertisement; strip away the promotional aspects, and I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. A related issue is some heavy WP:COI editing by the subject's webmaster on Hair restoration, Management of baldness, and several other related articles.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page. It is being edited to preserve encyclopedic information and eliminate extraneous information. Thank you. Furthermore, I find the fact that this page has been targeted for deletion simply because I have made an effort to improve Wikipedia articles to be a personal attack on Dr. Bernstein. I agree that this article needs to be modified. But the fact remains that this article has existed in its present form for over a year and it is only now that I have made some edits to other contextually relevant pages that you have targeted this page. I find this behavior to be unacceptable.
As for the comment, I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. Surely you jest. There is some improper wording, I will grant you that, but the suggestion that there is not "any solid biographical material" is farcical. Rbernstein (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:BIO, you'll see that it's about our policy regarding threshold for notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc). However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.
Obviously you are in the wrong, or at minimum not disclosing what you find objectionable to these writings. The idea that there is nothing notable is outrageous and factually-incorrect. Rbernstein (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Account "RBernstein" appears [1] to be a role account and probably should be blocked as such. See WP:ROLE.
What is the problem now? I have edited the article to be as neutral as possible and I have shown you that the article passes muster given the page on notability reference for academics. This article clearly falls within the purview of that article. I, of course, don't mind editing content deemed unsatisfactory, but the manner with which any issues are brought to my attention is problematic. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the assertion was made that Dr. Bernstein or his work do not meet the "threshold for notability." Of course, OhNoitsJamie, I don't expect a response, because your assertion is false. Rbernstein (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my initial nomination already describes my objections. The blurb you quote from WP:PROF doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines. I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area That is where, I am sorry to say, you are factually wrong. Dr. Bernstein was the first person to describe Follicular Unit Transplantation and Follicular Unit Extraction in medical literature. This is an accepted fact in the industry. Do I need to provide you with evidence? Rbernstein (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should start by reading the article before flagging it for deletion. This is a direct quotation from the president of the internationally-respected organization the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery at their meeting in 2001 upon Dr. Bernstein's acceptance of the Platinum Follicle Award for "Outstanding Achievement" in scientific and clinical research in hair restoration: "Dr. Bernstein has contributed to the field of hair transplantation in dramatic and substantial ways, revolutionizing the advancement of Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation. His published articles have become important in advancing this methodology. Dr. Bernstein's contributions to medical literature also include studies examining the power of sorting grafts for density, yield by method of graft production, local anesthetic use, and suture materials." Again, your assertions are baseless. Rbernstein (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, sir, I asked what the problem is now considering that I have edited the article down dramatically and your reply was a reference to your initial objection. What is the problem with the current article? You are not helping, but creating antagonism where none need exist. I ask you to be constructive. You are wasting my time, and your own, with your baseless comments and references to content that no longer exists. Rbernstein (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting further on it. I've stated my case, and other editors can add there !votes during the course of the AfD process. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not commenting now that I've shown evidence that your comments are totally absurd and baseless. You've stated your case that you, don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. You are not defending this comment because it is indefensible in light of the clear facts. Rbernstein (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of notability, you said: doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines
Here is evidence that this is incorrect:
Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities.
CHECK! He is currently Clinical Professor of Dermatology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.
However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements;
CHECK! Dr. Bernstein continues to publish medical literature despite his role as hair restoration physician.
You suggest, unbelievably, that despite meeting two basic criteria for notability as an academic, he isn't a notable academic. Again, this is incorrect to the point of farce. Rbernstein (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:PROF's description of what it means to be an academic, period, and confusing it with its criteria for notability among academics. Anyway, under your reasoning everyone who works either (a) inside academia or (b) outside academia, is not only an academic, but a notable one as well.

Let me advise you, User RBernstein, to stop now. That way, when the actual Dr. Robert M. Bernstein gets into the office tomorrow morning, he might, just might not fire you for bringing him so much embarrassment by your behavior here. Or are you in fact the person your username implies i.e. Dr. Robert M. Bernstein? EEng (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outdenting Perhaps you should read the whole WP:PROF page, instead of focusing on the introduction, which simple establishes who is covered by WP:PROF. I never disputed whether WP:PROF applies. this is the section that is germane to this discussion. Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. I also don't think "Platinum Follicle Award" is going to qualify as a "highly prestigious academic award." OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. Who are you? Honestly, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. Read what I wrote. He has been honored by the pre-eminent society in the field of hair transplantation, a multi-billion dollar international industry. You chose to belittle what you obviously do not understand. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. At the very least, Dr. Bernstein meets this criterion. He has revolutionized the massive industry of hair restoration with his medical literature. It has given him enough of a "notable" status to be invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the Dr. Oz Show, Good Morning America, The Today Show, The Discovery Channel, The Early Show, CBS News, Fox News, and National Public Radio. And that doesn't even include his interviews in print. Honestly, this is getting old. Dr. Bernstein is notable and your objections seem to be driven by some antipathy, on your part, of an undisclosed nature. Rbernstein (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The show carries ads that sound like ads (for, among others, a hair transplant chain called the New Hair Institute) as well as on-air recommendations by Kobren himself. The other night, for instance, Kobren wove in endorsements of physicians Robert Bernstein of New York and John Cole, who has an office in Wheaton. Both Bernstein (who heads the New Hair Institute) and Cole are members of something called the International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons (IAHRS) [founded by Kobren]." —Post
--CliffC (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I never realized there were so many hair transplant doctors using the media to help one another drum up business. No wonder some people in the industry feel themselves entitled to WP articles. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but which part of this steaming pile of moneygrubbing manure is "well-written?" EEng (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to see the word "follicular" used once in one's life, though I doubt that it works very effectively as "well-written" WP:SPAM designed to drive bald-headed clients to a hair restorationist's office. Qworty (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right! Follicular -- that's the little car that takes you up a mountain, right? EEng (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just remembered, we used to sing about this in eighth grade music class. The words are perhaps fitting:
To set the air with music bravely ringing
Is far from wrong! Is far from wrong!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Funiculì, follicular, funiculì, follicular!
Echoes sound afar, funiculì, follicular!
--CliffC (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a great believer in the potential for redemption of even the most grievous of sinners i.e. many valuable editors were real troublemakers when they started on Wikipedia, but this guy made it perfectly obvious that he was here solely to advance the economic interests of this Bernstein character, and his account has now been blocked for that reason. I take full responsibility for having a little fun at his expense.

As to "Let me advise you...": I stand by that too. Either Dr. Bernstein deserves to be embarrassed (if he encouraged this editor to use Wikipedia -- employing Bernstein's name as a username, no less -- as a promotional forum) or Bernstein does not (if he didn't know what was going on). So for the good of Wikipedia at least, and possibly for that of Dr. Bernstein, I advised the editor to cut the crap.

EEng (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I think Axlrosen has been extraordinarily patient with this user, which is commendable. However, I would advise the user that if they decide to become involved in future collaborative projects, they should avoid adopting such an arrogant and presumptuous tone towards veteran members of the project. It certainly doesn't engender a helpful attitude from others. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lest anyone misunderstand based on a cursory reading, I want to clarify that the "this user" with whom Axlrosen has been so patient is not me, but User:Rbernstein. At least, I hope that's the case. EEng (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (And I too compliment Axlrosen for his patience, though if he'd asked me I would have counseled him to give up much sooner. But many of us have, at times, foolishly wasted our patience on another editors who, in retrospect, was simply taking advantage of our good nature.)[reply]
Sorry not to be clear; yes, I meant that Axlrosen was quite patient with User:RBernstein, and that User:RBernstein (admittedly Dr. Bernstein's webmaster) should heed the advice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROF #1 (aka WP:ACAD, Criterion 1) provides (my italics added):
Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea...In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
With due respect to Popular Science, it's not an academic publication, not to mention the substantial number of references requirement. The media references are also useless -- see the very entertaining discussion underway at User_talk:Rbernstein (skip to the section just after the unblock-request box). EEng (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair enough, I stand corrected. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I agree that deletion is the clear outcome of all this, and the article's presentation of Bernstein as a "professor," without explaining the true nature of that professorship, adds to the already vivid picture of blatant promotionalism. For the record though, one need not hold an academic position (i.e. postsecondary faculty member -- paid or unpaid) to qualify under WP:ACAD. In certain areas e.g. medicine and computer science, there are researchers in private industry who have never been "on faculty" anywhere, yet whose work (e.g. measured by its citation by other researchers, effect on public discourse, etc.) qualify them for notability under WP:ACAD. EEng (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, but the latest problem is that this has now passed from a simple case of WP:COI into outright, blatant fraud. So much of the self-serving keep argument, both here and on the blocked user's talk page, has centered on the demonstrable falsehood that the guy, as originally described in the article, held a professorship at Columbia University, while only yesterday a previously uninvolved editor uncovered the truth: the guy is not at all a professor at Columbia, but only an unpaid, volunteer instructor at a medical center with ties to the university community. The prime argument for keep, so vigorously put forward by the blocked WP:SPA, had been that Bernstein was a very highly placed academic at Columbia, when the truth is that the university never hired him to do anything at all, whether it be to sweep floors or clean the cafeteria. What Bernstein may or may not tell his potential patients about his academic background is one thing, and certainly outside of our purview here, but the relevance for us is that self-serving arguments based on WP:ACADEMIC must be thoroughly exposed as hollow when it is determined by evidence uncovered by neutral, objective, previously uninvolved editors that a false academic claim has been made--not only in an article itself, but in the primary arguments against its well deserved deletion. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dealt with sensitively"? I suspect that you mean something different than Qworty thought you meant, and I think I agree with you. Axlrosen (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%, and I think that the WP:AUTO policy should be amended to warn users not only to avoid writing articles about themselves, but also to avoid defending those articles in AfD. It is one thing for a WP:SPA to write a WP:SPAM article for a commercial product from a completely WP:COI point of view, then come onto the AfD discussion to defend that non-notable spammy product. But when the spam being promoted is in fact a person, and the individual begins to monopolize other editors' valuable time with extremely insulting, WP:OWN arguments that are later determined by uninvolved editors to be false, and tries to start a flame war that gets so much red-hot attention that the WP:COI account achieves nothing more than getting itself blocked for all time, then it is only natural that, very unfortunately, there may be some hurt feelings involved. That's why I think it is so important that these non-notable individuals, whose grasp of WP policies is typically extremely weak to begin with, and who so often resist even the most rudimentary tutoring on policy, recuse themselves from writing articles about themselves, as well as recuse themselves from defending those articles. To my mind, there are few things as heart-breaking on the project as to see these self-promoting WP:SPA individuals coming onto an AfD to jump up and down in emotional distress as they cry out "I'm notable, I'm notable, yes I am, yes I truly am!" to the point that they get blocked, and succeed only in drawing wider public attention to the lack of notability that led to the situation in the first place. Anyone with a compassionate human heart would want that kind of tragic, self-destructive situation to be avoided at all costs. Qworty (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say the last 96 hours shows WP:AUTO's warning about the common fate, at AfD, of self-created articles -- "Beware that third-party comments may be most uncomplimentary" -- to be a bit of an understatement, to say the least. Too bad that attempts by the non-notable to write their own articles isn't itself considered notable, for then Dr. B could have an article, which would detail all the strained claims made on his behalf. But that would be too much fun, and would be kicking someone when he's down. We have better things to do.
WP:COI and particularly WP:AVOIDCOI specifically warn that COI's should steer clear of AfD. But vanity/COI editors are often the least informed about how things work around here. When someone is about to create a new article, he or she is invited, "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:WP:Your first article." If the novice editor does that, somewhere in there he'll read, "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends, nor pages that advertise..." Maybe that particular warning merits placing right out front on the new-article template itself, together with advice about how surprisingly effective editors are at sniffing out COI and how regularly self-promotion attempts end up embarrassing the person or entity they were intended to exalt. Or maybe that would do no good at all. I dunno.
EEng (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Crit 7 as I said at User_talk:Rbernstein (which is quite a strange read, let me tell you, but worth reviewing before you come to a conclusion here):
Putting aside the questions of what frequently quoted, conventional media, and as an academic expert mean, the idea that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may lend notability has to be applied in light of the text of Criterion 7 itself, which is that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my italics). A good measure of substantial impact outside academia might be the extent to which the subject's opinions stimulate response and discussion, especially from and among other experts, or policymakers. I doubt very much that anyone made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums. He's just a medical doctor who was willing to talk about his field. The substantial impact, if there was any, would have been limited to a possible increase in the size of his practice.
Please reconsider your opinion in this light. (The entirety of User_talk:Rbernstein is worth a skim if you have an hour or two to kill.) EEng (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My short answer is that notability is not the same as significance. We're not here to judge whether he has done anything of great significance, whether he's worthy, whether he deserves to be well known, but only whether he actually is well known. So if he's well known as the go-to guy that the TV news people call up when they need to talk to someone about hair, then he's well known, regardless of whether he even knows anything about hair. If he's a blatant and undeserving self-promoter, that's still irrelevant, as long as his self-promotion actually works. That is to say, we shouldn't allow him to carry on self-promoting here, but if other people have taken note of his self-promotion then we should take note of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the distinction between significance and notability, but that's not the issue here, and neither is his self-promotion on WP. Again, Crit 7 itself reads (my emphasis)
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
A note to Crit 7 reads (again, my emph)
Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The note suggests a path by which the criterion itself may (as the note says) be satisfied; to determine whether the media path actually leads to notability in Bernstein's case requires returning to Criterion 7 itself, and its requirement of "substantial impact." So, has the quoting of Bernstein had a substantial impact outside academia? I claim that while "substantial impact" could take many forms, a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) test for "substantial" is that there be some kind of response -- that someone oppose, support, comment on, or rely on something he said, outside the forum in which he said it. If the FDA issued a warning about hair graft X, and a national news show, reporting the story, said, "Bernstein, a leading expert, wrote as far back as December that X could be dangerous, to which Dr. J, developer of X, responded..." -- that at least might suggest substantial impact (with emphasis on suggest -- it's impact smoke, but still not impact fire). Bernstein has none of that. Appearing on a talk show, or the existence of quote marks around your words in a Men's Health puffpiece, isn't even "being quoted" in any meaningful sense. They're just interviews, which no one else picked up on or cared about. Thus no substantial impact, and no Criterion 7.
I'd be interested to know what you think.
EEng (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree. An article whose content is so self-promotional that a complete rewrite would be necessary i.e. nothing in it is worth keeping, can be deleted on that basis, but that's not what happened here. And that can happen without regard to the subject's notability; if a new, not-wholly-promotional article is begun, then the question of notability might come up if someone doubts it. On the other hand, abuse by the subject of WP for his own purposes means that the article might have to be purged of such content, and the editor sanctioned, but can have no bearing on a notability decision.
The R.B. article was not irretrievably promotional, so that played no part in my delete recommendation, and neither did the circus with the "Rbernstein" editor here and at User_talk:Rbernstein. I recommended delete because, in my opinion, Bernstein is notable neither under GNG nor any area guideline., and only for that reason.
There's clear consensus Bernstein doesn't meet ACAD, but you're the first to suggest he might qualify under GNG. So pease be specific -- and I mean specific -- about how he mets GNG, with careful reference to GNG's "Significant coverage" and reliability requirements, plus its requirements that there be multiple sources which are secondary and independent boith of the subject and of one another.
EEng (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to Qworty: Don't freak out! Let Mandsford answer first!
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.
More