Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Draft:Robert Colebunders
 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,209 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Submission declined on 28 September 2024 by Tavantius (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 30 June 2024 by Mgp28 (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by Mgp28 3 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 18 April 2024 by Xkalponik (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Xkalponik 6 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 13 March 2024 by Kline (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Kline 7 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 4 February 2024 by Xegma (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by Xegma 8 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 24 January 2024 by Rich Smith (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by Rich Smith 8 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 10 October 2023 by Rich Smith (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by Rich Smith 12 months ago. | |
Comment: Almost all references are written by the subject of the article so cannot be considered independent. I suspect he could pass WP:NPROF, e.g. WP:NPROF#C1. In quite a few places the article states that his work had a significant impact, but the only reference for these statements is his work itself. If there were independent sources referring to the impact of his work, either in practice or in academia, then I would be more convinced. I can see that there has been a lot done to make the article less promotional than the previous version. Mgp28 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Still the same issues as my last decline. A lot of 'Career' is unsourced, all of 'Personal life' is unsourced - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: A lot of 'Career' is unsourced, all of 'Personal life' is unsourced - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Robert Colebunders | |
|---|---|
| Born | 19 April 1950 |
| Nationality | Belgian |
| Alma mater | University of Antwerp Free University of Brussels Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp |
| Scientific career | |
| Fields | Infectious Diseases |
| Institutions | Global Health Institute University of Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp |
| Website | uantwerpen |
Robert Colebunders (born 19 April 1950) is a Belgian clinician and researcher specialising in infectious diseases and epidemiology, particularly in the study of emerging pathogens and tropical diseases[1][2]. He has made significant contributions to understanding and managing diseases such as Ebola, AIDS, tuberculosis and onchocerciasis. Colebunders investigated major outbreaks, including the Ebola and Ebola and Marburg virus epidemics, and has contributed to research on COVID-19 and monkeypox. His current work focuses on onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy (OAE), a condition prevalent in regions where river blindness (onchocerciasis) is endemic. He is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp (ITM), Belgium, and continues to lead international research efforts on infectious diseases at the Global Health Institute.
- ^ Coalition for Equitable Research in Low-Resource Settings. "Robert Colebunders". CERCLE - Coalition for Equitable Research in Low-Resource Settings. Retrieved 23 July 2024.
- ^ International Society for Infectious Diseases (3 June 2020). "ISID Council Members - ISID". Retrieved 23 July 2024.
Previous Page Next Page
- meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
- or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.