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.
Keep. I notice that the nominator doesn't describe the steps he took to determine that this subject is non-notable, but I'm wondering if that included checking citation counts. I'm seeing more than a page of triple-digit-cited articles in Google Scholar (though he doesn't appear to have a GS profile). Even for clinical medicine, I think this should get him over the bar.
EricEnfermero (
Talk) 02:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
He is a living person. There needs to be external references.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Are you indicating that you are going to close this in lieu of a BLP PROD?
EricEnfermero (
Talk) 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per above, passes
WP:PROF#C1. Yet another nomination based on
Rathfelder's misinterpretation of the BLP policy. –
Joe (
talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Rathfelder: Could you please quote the section of
WP:BLP that you think supports this rash of nominations of notable people? –
Joe (
talk) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR) "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." The articles I have nominated have no secondary sources at all.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (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.