Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Cappuccino

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 no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Cappuccino

Andrew Cappuccino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article fails notability requirements. Andrew Cappuccino is "famous" for one thing: He was one of the physicians involved in treating a spectacular spine injury for a professional athlete.

The article does not meet any of the basic notability requirements in WP:BIO: He, himself, has not been the subject of published secondary source material. He has won no important awards. He has not (yet, at least) made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field." He's just a nice person who is doing a new-ish style of back surgery and happened to get a famous client.

For the purposes of Wikipedia's notability requirements, the coverage of his famous client is irrelevant: Notability is not inherited. Cappuccino can be (and is) mentioned in the article about the athlete and his injury. The mere fact that he was a surgeon for a celebrity does not mean that the surgeon is independently notable (and independent notability is what we require for independent articles).

In academic terms, he's published a handful of papers. Or -- his name is on about a dozen published papers, and except for the most recent, there are always at least five authors, and his name is never listed as either of the two most important authors. This argues against him meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements on the basis of his publications. He does not qualify under WP:PROF.

The Google News refs, when you exclude the one famous client, are remarkably unimportant: He talked about a surgery technique at an investor reception. One of his patients sued someone else. He got his name in the local paper for some charity work -- two normal fundraisers (bleachers at the local football field and Second Harvest food bank) and one surgery on a Russian girl. Just for a little perspective, I ran the same search with my own name and found a handful of references to myself. I don't consider being quoted in articles on the wire services to actually make me notable, however.

This was nominated for {{prod}} a few days ago; one editor thought that it should go through AfD. I think that the article should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Reasons for deletion have gotten no stronger, and in contrast I've become more confident that this person is notable, and not just in the moment. Antelan^talk 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Comment: While his academic work may not be notable, he may be notable as a personage for the Everett case. Antelan^talk 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is his "major claim to fame," I wanted to address this specifically: As I understand the invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines, that makes him eligible for mention in the Everett article, not notable in his own right. That is, Wikipedia would include the event and mention him in any articles about the event, but not have biographies on the individual people who happened to be involved in a notable event. Of course, if most editors interpret these rules differently, or if most editors believe that having one celebrity patient makes him a suitable subject for his own article, then I can live with that outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure of it myself; hence the comment rather than !vote. The thing is, this was one event, but news coverage still continues - and not just for the event itself, but for Cappuccino's use of the technique. This is why I'm not ready to support or oppose a delete - hopefully, someone with intricate knowledge like DGG will come by and give his thorough opinion. Antelan^talk 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete if failsWP:PROF, then fails WP:ONEEVENT. I would like to be convinced otherwise. Mitico (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure He may in fact satisfy WP:PROF as a notable medical researcher, even absent the Everett story. I looked up GoogleScholar and he does have a number of reasonably highly cited scholarly articles, with citation hits of 79, 58, 36, 30. The WP article for him also mentions some honors, albeit not major ones, like the "Health Care Hero 2005" (which, incidentally, precedes the Everett story by a few years). Based on the WP article material and the info on his web site, one could possibly make the case that he has been a significant innovator in the area of disc replacement. So, as I said, he might satisfy WP:PROF, but I am not sure about it and would like to hear from people more familiar with the standards in the medical research area. Nsk92 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep ChangLimbang (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable apart from the sport. Personally, I think the sports part is quite enough, but it just adds to the public knowledge of him. The publications and the citations of him make notability just as frany other biomedical professional. But I have yet to analyze the actual publication record. DGG (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because while the subject may be notable no editor has stepped forward to bring the article up to minimum criteria. --Una Smith (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

and under what policy does this delete reason fall? DGG (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See the first tag on the article talk page, linking to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Una Smith (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on this approach are on the talk page. Antelan^talk 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep primarily based on the sports medicine, supplemented by some overall notability as a medical scientist--only 8 peer reviewed papers in Web of Science, but citation of , respectively, 50, 34, 39 for the top 3 are mildly significant--he does seem to be a leading figure in a particular niche area of spinal surgery--added to the significant role in sports, and i think it is just enough--it is reasonable that someone might look for information about him in an encyclopedia. . DGG (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2008 (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.