Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ostad

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. Veinor (talk to me) 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Ostad

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

Non-notable plastic surgeon. Having a lawsuit filed against you does not make you notable. PRODded, PROD removed by original author. Corvus cornix 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He has not had 1 lawsuit. I think he has had 13, legal action by Botox, and lost of medical license.Newcolex 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose deletion until there is a proper review at the BLP. I submitted it for BLP review immediately after writing the article. If wikipedia does not want an article because it is negative (even if well referenced), then I will abide by the decision without further review or fuss. BLP review may generate suggestions or edits from other editors. If there are no useful BLP comments, then I support AfD listing only after the article remains for 5 days (which is the PROD time period).
This article was in place less than 20 minutes when it was AfD listed. Too short!Newcolex 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actual news sources are next to nil. Of the 20 citations (actually more like 10, since the user didn't user REFNAME tags): Seven come from court document PDFs (lending an unhealthy whiff of WP:OR), and three are the same URL ending in .exe, which I'm totally not going to click on to find out what it is. And one of the cites clearly does not support the statement the article uses it to support ("There are news reports about alleged unsatisfactory care by Ostad regaring [sic] patient Tanya"), and in fact says something neutral or OPPOSITE (that Ostad is an okay doc who treated Tanya), so the whole article seems a little like a bad-faith POV create to me. Getting sued a lot and being a bad doctor are not sufficient proof of notability. Ford MF 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comment: Shouldn't *.exe "references" be removed pronto? — Athaenara 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Ford MF 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a question of whether Wikipedia does or doesn't want negative articles, as the author of the article is implying on the BLP page. (Also, as far as I know, there's no 'minimum age' for an article to be on AfD, nor does the author (or anyone else) get to state the terms for it to be discussed here). There are big verifiability issues here, in my view. Mainly primary sources are used, and some unreliable secondary sources - that's it. If the article was backed by an article about this guy in, say, the New York Times, it would be different - but as Ford MF stated above, there are no reliable secondary sources to be found. --JoanneB 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but could you point me to the reliable secondary sources that are listed in the article? There are plenty of primary sources, and one could argue that those are reliable, but that would make it original research. --JoanneB 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
So, if I created majormultinationalcorporationsux.com, and they went to court to get a case and desist order against me, I can be in Wikipedia, too? Corvus cornix 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not verified -Docg 01:44, 13 May 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.