Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Maloney (doctor)

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 09:22Z

[edit] Robert Maloney (doctor)

Robert Maloney (doctor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Contested speedy. So mostly a procedural nomination. This doctor is known as an expert of LASIK. Earlier versions of the article were badly inappropriate [1]. I doubt that there is much value in the current article but arguably meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like somebody posted their resume. Unless I were shopping for a doctor, which is not appropriate here, I cannot see the value of the present article. Magichands 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First post was against the guidelines but it was more of a history of the guy. I found it and posted it. If I did it wrong I then tried to make it right but I guess you guys don't want it. Fits in with this: Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion:

The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1 This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2

• Strong keep The major media references are enough. Whether or not he is noted as a scientist, or noted as a physician, he would be noted as a video personality on major networks. Six of them. And then, looking at what is called the "badly inappropriate" earlier version, I find in his CV sufficient documentation of notability as a physician. Sure, we don't want the whole thing, but I've added back the key positions, and awards, and editorships, and the over 50 peer-reviewed papers in top-rate journals; and the patents--I almost forgot the 4 or 5 patents. All clinical research, not fundamental science, but that counts just as much. I can get the PubMed citations if challenged. Good case for not relying on speedy for N, & I'm glad someone contested it. DGG 01:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And Rhodes Scholar. there was so much I didn't spot it the first time through. I'm going to have to abridge the bibliography; it is not up to date anyway, there will be more by now. DGG 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

it actually was a contested prod, not a speedy. .DGG 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Informative and notable. Dwain 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think that he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Being the subject of news coverage is one thing, opining on a subject on the news is something rather different. Eluchil404 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. —David Eppstein 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. John Vandenberg 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but ruthlessly remove any text not verifiable from reliable sources. CiaranG 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is renowned for his role in laser eye stuff. WP:BIO established for this reason IMO.--Dacium 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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.