- 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin Haskell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Serious WP:BLP1E issues. Appears to be notable only for first describing a controversial abortion procedure. Article verges on a WP:COATRACK (see talk page). Sourcing is entirely primary and unreliable; there are no reliable, independent third-party sources, so in any case fails WP:BIO and the sourcing requirements for WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he invented and pioneered the D&X, not just "first described" it, per numerous sources in Google News Archive. The pro-life lobby has made him something of a cause infâme. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so you know, "first described" is sort of medical jargon for the first person to publish a procedure, allowing for prior independent discovery, which happens more often than you'd think. So it really means much the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are far, far far too many sources referring to him, some in depth, for us to decry a lack of notability. See [1] (Google News) and [2] Google Books. (Mind meal (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: I'm not saying we lack sources, necessarily, but that he is notable only for 1 event. Given the current state of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E, I think it would make more sense to redirect this article to intact dilation and extraction and cover his role in that article. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple additional sources available,and clearly notable. The invention of a significant medical procedure is not was was intended by BLP One Event--it was intended for a non notable person being involved in something essentially trivial but reported in newspapers. Its use for someone who did one major notable thing is not what was meant. And given that, he has undoubtedly been involved in significant further controversy.DGG (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I completely agree with DGG's reasoning here regarding the misapplication of BLP1E/BIO1E criteria. Many such trivial-event biographies fall under WP:COATRACK and the what is not a coatrack section indicates that if something is a legitimate claim to notability such as a substantive accomplishment, obviously including the invention of medical procedures, that is not a coatrack. I venture that the same reasoning applies to BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the feedback I'm getting here from editors I respect, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD at this point. I continue to think that this would be better covered at intact dilation and extraction and that there's not enough there for a separate bio, but I'm clearly in a minority here. If there's no objection, I'll close the AfD as speedy keep and start looking for some secondary sources for the article. DGG, if you have any sources handy, please drop them on the talk page. MastCell Talk 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I completely agree with DGG's reasoning here regarding the misapplication of BLP1E/BIO1E criteria. Many such trivial-event biographies fall under WP:COATRACK and the what is not a coatrack section indicates that if something is a legitimate claim to notability such as a substantive accomplishment, obviously including the invention of medical procedures, that is not a coatrack. I venture that the same reasoning applies to BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the proposed speedy keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:57, 5 February 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.