Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Nicholl (neurologist)

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 — Caknuck 04:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Nicholl (neurologist)

David Nicholl (neurologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an article about a living person notable for only one event. As discussed in WP:BLP this is unlikely to warrant an article. Itsmejudith 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this single event is not significant enough to warrant an article.--Rtphokie 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Just in case anybody else doesn't think being an internationally recognized human rights activist is enough, I've added a few more points to the article. I'm always amazed -- no I'm never amazed, but usually disgusted -- by the fact that deletion-crazed users rush to post their Google Search results when they favor whacking articles, but somehow those guys never respond on articles like this one. VivianDarkbloom 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thats a very good start. For as many Keep's as I'm seeing here I'd hoped to see more updates and learn more about this man from this article.--Rtphokie 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonably notable as researcher (>200 Google Scholar hits) and clinician, in addition to notoriety from activism. Hal peridol 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the political notability needs some additional references beyond the BBC, which says only that he "co-ordinated" the letter -- agreed, a very important letter. But with respect to his academic work: I clarified the references and added a sentence about the topic he works in and his professional position--the inadequate article did not mention either. And they are not very impressive: he does not hold an academic position other than as an honorary senior lecturer, which I think is the UK equivalent of a US clinical assistant or associate professor; he has only 32 peer reviewed papers listed in Web of Science, rather low for a clinical scientist; his most cited paper (very heavily cited--one of a group who isolated an important gene) is one where he was only 13th of 21 authors, and similarly for most of the rest of his work. I think he is of very borderline notability as an academic. GS hits, like ghits, need analysis, not counting. And "notorious"; is a negative term, not a positive one. DGG (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe he's notable for his role as an activist, with several letters published in the Lancet and other medical journals on related topics, eg. [1], [2], [3]. Though as DGG points out, he seems to have published relatively few primary papers (Medline finds 19 papers, several of which relate to activism), most are in high-quality specialist journals eg Brain, Neuron, Ann Neurol. He has also co-written several reviews on Parkinson's, eg [4], [5], which tends to support the idea that his peers consider him an expert, and I believe goes towards satisfying WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 23:31, 18 September 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.