- 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. Hut 8.5 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=mb28&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Although Medline finds only two papers that relate to him, it seems to represent poor coverage of his specialty as there are many more on his CV.[1] Google Scholar finds papers with 97 and 74 citations, and another 5 or so with over 20 citations; there's also a patent with 66 citations. There's some press coverage of a recent novel technique, which seems to suggest a degree of controversy: eg see New York Times [2]. Borderline, but probably meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find at least 12 in medline [3], not 2.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The citation record satifies criterion 3 of WP:PROF, the pioneering techniques satisfy criterion 5, and the press coverage satisfies general WP:N and WP:BIO criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the press coverage alone--without even having to evaluate much further. The nom should have been able to do the same. the nom has been fighting spam so successfully and heroically--more power to him-- that there might be an understandable tendency to forget that sometime PR can be about someone notable.DGG (talk) 16:46, 31 January 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.