Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Wood-Smith

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 KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Wood-Smith

Donald Wood-Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=dw40&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Virtually no sources independent of the subject. Inclusion on a "Best of" list does not equal coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete keep. Full professor since 1991 and elected fellow of the Scottish Royal College of Surgeons. However, Medline finds only two papers, though Google Scholar finds several others suggesting that the Medline coverage might be poor for older papers in his field. Medline finds 30 articles for "Wood Smith D" mainly in respectable subject-specific journals, with a specialism in craniofacial surgery, where he appears to be an expert. Co-authored two books, one of which has 54 citations in Google Scholar. Borderline, but leaning to delete given the agenda of the creating editor. Willing to change my mind if someone else brings fresh evidence, as I suspect Medline & Google are severely underrepresenting his contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keepprovisionally--there is probably something wrong with the Medline search. someone who has written these books & chapters of standard works must have published more. I suspect the hypenated name. DGG (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, repeating on "Wood Smith D" works. I've never had that problem before. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is chairman of multiple teaching hospital departments over last 20-30 years (Manhattan Eye & Ear, New York Eye & Ear), Director of a post-graduate surgical training program in plastic & reconstructive surgery, and a full-professor at Columbia (Formerly at NYU as well) (See Online CV and institution websites). Less importantly, he is cited in multiple popular press articles as an expert (e.g. New York Times, New York Post, Sunday Times-London etc) (See changes to page for direct citations). This appears to satisfy criteria 1. As previously stated, numerous works with multiple citations in well-known journals in field (Ann Plast Surg, Clin Plast Surg, J Neurosurg etc) and is an author of book chapters and textbooks (Appears to be co-author of section "Current Management of Orbital Fractures" in textbook "Operative Techniques in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery", Author of medical textbook “Nursing Care of the Plastic Surgery Patient” (374 pages) and author of reference text (potentially textbook) “Cosmetic Facial Surgery” (609) pages (See Google Books search for “Donald Wood-Smith”) Beyond book, which is cited 54x, subject’s articles are also cited multiple times, e.g.: 48x (Orbital blowout fractures), 32x (On hemifacial microsomia), 24x (Craniosynostosis) and others 22x, 23x, 21x etc according to google scholar (at least another 5-10 with greater than 10 citations). Given the issues described earlier regarding difficulty of doing Medline searches with the subject’s hyphenated name, suspect that there are more out there. As such, seems to satisfy criteria 3 based on level of citations, published work and authorship of textbook.Polk52 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 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.