Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Crutchfield III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete --JForget 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charles E. Crutchfield III
procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Article was nominated for PROD-deletion and declined in September 2007, the PROD-nominated again (diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most recent PROD nominator did not provide a reason; the prior PROD nominator stated "Notability not proven. Being the first "board certified clinical dermatologist in Minnesota" is not sufficient grounds for notability. Article appears to be promotional in nature." I think this person is borderline notable; his notability derives from being a talented and articulate doctor practicing rural medicine - which is relatively rare in and of itself. My feeling is that if he were working in someplace like New York or London, he would blend into the crowd of dermatologists. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator: I was unfair in my characterization and have struck the offending passage - sorry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keepdue primarily to his numerous well-cited publications, but the article needs more independent sources. I was almost swayed by the Mayo Clinic Karis award but it seems to be open only to those practicing somewhere on the Mayo campus. The thing is, though, Mayo is a national, even international center of medicine, and I think "rural" is an odd thing to say about Minneapolis. The other awards are also local/promotional in nature. The article is written in punchy PR style which needs fixing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It's definitely not a fair assessment to classify the Mayo clinic as 'rural medicine.' World leaders go there on a fairly regular basis for treatment. Anyway, the notability seems to be there, though I agree with Dhartung that the article could use some clean-up.matt91486 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Alright, I looked over it again, and it probably should be deleted. I allowed myself to get caught up in the semantics of metropolitan areas which should have nothing to do with whether or not this article should be kept. Upon closer review, he doesn't really meet notability. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)- Delete. As the editor who first PRODded this article, I still think it should be deleted. The notability is borderline, but the main problem lie in the fact that apparently Crutchfield, someone connected to him or both, made substantial edit to this article, and it does not represent a neutral point of view. Moreover, it seems to be overly promotional, and some of its facts are in dispute. This guy seems to be a big self-promoter, and I fear he is using WP to that end. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The article is solely promotional, the guy is not notable and bias is evident. This is well outside of Wiki's standards Rotovia (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete I don't think he passes WP:PROF, this whole article seems to exist as a promotional vehicle for www.crutchfielddermatology.com Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No real notability, article seems to exist for self-promotional purposes only. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I know this guy and he has sent this out by e-mail to everyone, stating that Wiki chose him and put him on here. Everything he does is for business reasons, and he is a marketing genius, whom happens to be a doctor. As a patient of his I find this to be just another attempt at gaining popularity. I would also state his practice is in RURAL MN Eagan is not Minneapolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment The article doesn't actually say where his practice is located. If it is in Eagan, Minnesota, that is a city of 60,000 people that is within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, an urbanization of some 3 million people. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Eagan is rural compared to Minneapolis, I live here, I think I should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eagan cannot be considered rural by any logical definition. It's a suburban area inside the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. matt91486 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eagan is rural by many "logical" definitions. Yes it is a suburb, but anywhere there are wide open spaces and cows roaming is rural to me. Wiki says rural areas are settled places outside towns and cities. If you practice in Eagan that is NOT Minneapolis! JMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollabackgurl29 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. Being a good physician is beneficial to society but not inherently notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article about a person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 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.
