Talk:Innocent Gangaidzo

Notability

Hello @Onel5969. Thank you for your input.

You have tagged Innocent Gangaidzo as, may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics

However according to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Innocent Gangaidzo is notable because "6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He is President of ECSACOP which is the highest academic administrative post for a major medical organization covering covering 7 countries.

You also tagged it as relies excessively on references to primary sources

However according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher." The sources used are are largely independent, accurate, high quality, from reputable organizations, etc.

Please may you kindly remove the tags you placed?

Ear-phone (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks for reaching out. I'm sorry, but being president of a medical organization does not equate with holding a top academic position at a university or academic society. We just went through an AfD about someone else similar, and that was the consensus. And regarding your second point, your missing the point of the tag. While the quote from the essay above is perfectly correct, it does not address the policy instruction, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (see WP:PRIMARY). I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Onel5969.

Sarah Clarke is president of the Royal College of Physicians a major professional academic medical society/organization. She is rightly notable. ECSACOP is also such an organization for physicians. Its president Innocent Gangaidzo is similarly notable.

Eric Rubin is editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. He is rightly notable. Innocent Gangaidzo is editor-in-chief of the Central African Journal of Medicine, a reputable journal established in 1953. "8 The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." (see Wikipedia:Notability (academics))

Carrie MacEwen is the chair of the General Medical Council. She is rightly notable. Gangaidzo was the president of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe.

Thus in addition to being a president of two major academic organizations, Gangaidzo has an additional notability criterion of being editor-in-chief.

This is one of the references which provides descriptive statements of facts (see WP:PRIMARY).

Please may you kindly remove the tags? @Onel5969:

Ear-phone (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I do not think that ECSACOP is equitable with Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Physicians. In addition, nor is the CAMJ equitable with the NEJM. In addition, Rubin has several articles which have been cited thousands of times, which would meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Carrie MacEwen does not necessarily pass notability criteria for being the chair of that Council. But she is a DBE, which consensus has agreed is notable. But please remember, I am not saying they are not notable. The tag only gives other reviewers the knowledge that I am unsure of their notability. But here's a question, why, rather than adding in-depth sourcing to the article, are you simply spending time in this discussion. Rather than waste that time, simply add that sourcing. If this subject is that notable, it shouldn't be an issue.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Onel5969. I do not agree with your assessments, including about how I spend my time, therefore I will seek a third opinion. For instance, ECSACOP in fact covers more countries with a substantially larger population. The 'rule' simply says highest and ECSACOP is the highest. @Onel5969: Ear-phone (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: The article would benefit from more and broader independent sourcing, which would better establish clear notability. Nobody is saying that material should be removed or the article deleted, however, only that it should be improved. Notability rests on three criteria from WP:NACADEMIC: criteria 1, how often the subject's work has been cited; criteria 6, holding the highest-level administrative post at a major academic institution or society (note 6b allows for a "significant accredited college/university"); and criteria 8, chief editor of a well-established academic journal.

For the three publications listed, Google Scholar results show 214, 105, and 52 results (cited by). Scopus gives 1451 documents citing him.

The subject is president of ECSACOP, a regional college of physicians. The criteria includes for an academic society, which includes professional associations, and it seems to me that ESCACOP fits in that, although it is a relatively new organization (founded 2015) and whether it would be considered "major" may be up for debate (it doesn't have to be as notable as the Royal College). From its website, ESCACOP describes itself as a constituent college of the East, Central and southern Africa College of Health Sciences, and offers four-year full-time graduate training in internal medicine, which confers a fellowship in its society, recognized professionally in the region.

The subject is chief editor of the Central African Journal of Medicine, which was founded 70 years ago (is well-established) and is "major" in the subject area (particularly noting medical issues related to Africa).

While I feel the subject meets the notability criteria (on all three points above), I do agree that there are some reasonable questions and that notability could be better established through independent sourcing. Personally, I probably wouldn't have published the article without better sourcing. So I would say to keep the maintenance tags (I invite Onel5969 to remove the notability tag if they agree with my assessment, but the primary sources tag should definitely stay) and work on improving the article. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Reidgreg for a more fair assessment.

@Randykitty: @Headbomb: This is what I meant by, "I wonder why I often encounter resistance whenever I create articles about clearly notable African entities. It's extraordinary as conventional Wikipedia notability criteria no longer apply. These articles are nominated for deletion or deemed not to be suitable as stand-alone articles."

Gangaidzo meets at least four different notability criteria: (1) president of ECSACOP (2) editor-in-chief of an established academic journal, which has been in operation for nearly 70 years (3) former president of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (4) impact by number of citations. Any one of these alone would be sufficient for Wikipedia notability. I will provide an additional example: Suzanne Crowe is president of the Medical Council of Ireland which makes her rightly notable. In addition to Godfrey Muguti, former president of COSECSA, the next page I was going to create was Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe, which was established over 100 years ago - in 1905. Such organizations are notable e.g. Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council. Even if one uses independent sources from reputable organizations, it is still not enough. It is thus clear to me that content related to Africa is not particularly welcome on Wikipedia as it's notability is immediately questioned despite easily meeting the criteria. Various tags are then applied to the article(s).

I should not be surprised, after all there is systemic bias on Wikipedia.

Goodbye, BW and good luck.

@Doc James: @I JethroBT:

Ear-phone (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

References