Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoto Ueno

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but the view that it needs some improvement to remove any appearance of COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Naoto Ueno

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Naoto Ueno (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)

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Japan, Hawaii, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:BIO Tesleemah (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.

Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.

Secondary/independent analysis

~60 words Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response. ~120 words Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote] ~160 words An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV) ~120 words Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...] ~50 words Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery. ~20 words Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote] ~160 words In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...] ~120 words, but by a former coauthor The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...] ~45 words Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.

The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am in the middle of Keep and Draft. In the current state it should be drafted because the sources are not the best and it is written in a biased way. The current sources are not the best, and should probably be removed (the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center source is 404 error), and without them the page doesn't have anything, which is why I'm leaning draft/delete.

But I agree with the Keep people that the academic articles that he has written show notability. The problem is that the current page doesn't really reflect the research he does, or sources any of it.

Overall, the page needs an over hall.

- Bpuddin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per passing WP:NPROF. DCsansei (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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.