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 (non-admin closure). WilliamH (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse non-admin closure as keep. --jonny-m t 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jess Dannenberg[edit]

Non-notable and has issues with WP:BLP1E. This researcher is described in terms of being a coauthor on a paper retracted because one of the other authors had committed scientific fraud. There is no implication that this researcher committed misconduct, to my knowledge. Other than his tangential connection to this episode, he is no more notable than the average professor of medicine. MastCell ^Talk 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is some sideways suggestion of a possibility of some form of implied culpability in the bio in question sourced to a Norwegian newspaper article, but... The description of the incident in the Jon Sudbø article suggests that none of his co-authors were fraudsters, so I see WP:BLP issues here. All the encycplopedic value related to this Bio is the fraud, and the fraud is more than adequately covered in the Jon Sudbø article, so I see no reason to keep this. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, I doubt that fraud implications this serious would rate only a mention in the Norwegian press. Here it's asserted that the co-authors are considered dupes. This is insufficient under WP:BLP. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP concerns, fraud claim appears to be doubtful. KnightLago (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please look at his bio at the NYU/Cornell website [1] The article merely needs to be expanded. He holds a named full professorship at the cornell medical school & is head of a major service there. 3 significant awards. I've added this to the article. That he was coauthor of a fraudulent paper, presumably as a dupe, is sourced adequately by The Scientist. I do not know on what base Pete concluded there is no other notability. "no more notable than the average professor of medicine" is hardly correct, as he's at the top rank at one of the top medical schools. I suspect nobody above has actually looked beyond the minimal information on the article--apparently not even in Google. DGG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out from Web of Science he has over 200 articles, of which 27 have been cited over 100 times -- highest is 401. Even in the medical sciences, this is a remarkably strong record. DGG (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered whether the article just needed to be rewritten. I'm not questioning that he is a prominent researcher, but I know a lot of full professors of medicine at several big-name academic medical centers, and my sense is that academic rank alone isn't necessarily enough for notability per WP:PROF. The only secondary-source coverage deals with his connection to the Sudbo paper, but any discussion which highlights this episode does a disservice to his other academic work, which is prolific but low-profile beyond the medical community in which he works. That's where I thought BLP1E comes in - it's better to have no biography than one which implies, however unintentionally, that he is notable for his connection to the Sudbo paper. These are just my 2 cents, but just to provide some background for the nomination... MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added 3 third party references to his work. (just found a 4th, complete with a portrait). found them in Google. Agreed, they weren't on the 1st screen of results.... Care to withdraw your nomination? DGG (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I dunno. My major concern was the BLP1E aspect. I can live with the article notability-wise, particularly with the additional sources, so long as it doesn't turn into a WP:COATRACK or imply that his biggest claim to fame is that one of his coauthors committed scientific fraud on a paper. MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. I've checked the Lancet website and he is listed as an author of a paper now retracted for "fabricated data", so there seems no BLP concern in mentioning that fact. As to whether or not he was an unknowing dupe, that seems best left unmentioned, unless there is strong evidence either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep. In addition to DGG's arguments, I think "Keep" because it is particularly difficult to find ways of merging the information about retracted papers into the research subject itself. I think there are BLP issues to consider though and the article should be extremely carefully sourced. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG comments. The citation rates are extremely high; he has significant awards and holds a named Chair position at one of the top medical schools. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF, so I do not think that this is a BLP1E case. The article does need some work in terms of balance, but it should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (changed from delete above) I still think the article may lack balance (sources in the Jon Sudbø article seem exculpatory wrt this person), but DGG is right about the fact that, aside from this BLP1E, he exceeds the standards usually required for keeping at Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Like Mscuthbert, I think the paragraph on the Lancet paper ought to be re-written a bit more carefully. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments by DGG, I believe that the earlier concerns have been quashed. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per welcome improvements by DGG and Richard Arthur Norton. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 27 March 2008 (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.