- 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. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ziya Saylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable figure within my field Droliver (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you address the 45 or so Google News hits? And there are a couple of Google Books hits that use the word "popularized" for two different(?) surgeries. Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Did you acutually look at those google hits you're pointing to for notability? There is nothing of substance to any of those google hits, most consisting of quotes in pop culture articles. This is not a noted academic or significant contributor to my field by any standard.Droliver (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a good idea to do that analysis, source by source, as part of your nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep At least the following references on the implants seem substantial: [1] , [2] [3], [4] . Material noticed by the lay press can be notable also--this is not an academic but a general encyclopedia. What is interesting is the almost complete lack of refs. after 2004, so it must not have actually been very successful. PubMed shows 9 article in mainstream English language journals--on other topics than these implants. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage in WP:RS meeting WP:GNG described above. Andrea105 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2009 (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.