Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton Becker
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 of the debate was Speedy Deleted as copyright violation by User:DragonflySixtyseven Pilatus 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hilton Becker
This article was put up the other say by User:Infrasonic, who likely is Dr Becker himself. I cleaned up the article and am now submitting it here for consideration because it looks too much like a vanity biography.
According to the article, Dr Becker has published a bunch of papers and is on the lecturing circuit. That alone doesn't mean much, it's the work of any academic to publish papers and give lectures. Being a member of any professional society doesn't establish notability either; as long as one has the requisite qualifications anyone who will pay the membership dues can be a member.
The article states that the Dr Becker appeared on a TV show and was featured in several popular journals. Being mentioned does not make one sufficiently notable to warrant an article here, one should be something of a household name. I don't think that is the case here.
I'm unsure about the inventions Dr Becker lists. We read that a few patents have been issued, Google Scholar mentions the "Wells Johnson Becker-Rojas powered liposuction device" once, but nothing states that those patents are licensed or that the inventions are somehow widely used or groundbreaking in a way. The suction cannula is reported in ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY 25 (2): 154-158 AUG 1990 and cited a whopping eight times. The adjustable breast implant is described in PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 73 (4): 678-683 1984; that paper is cited a respectable 65 times. However, implantable pockets that are filled with saline over the course of a few weeks or months are common in reconstrucive surgery for the raising of skin flaps to use in autologous grafts, I fail to see why a breast implant with a septum is a novelty. Altogether, delete as vanity. Pilatus 03:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on your nom, Becker invented a new type of breast implant in the 1980s that changed his field. He holds patents and his Becker Expander/Mammary Prosthesis was approved by the FDA. That seems good enough for inclusion. -- JJay 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: anyone who pays the application fee can receive a patent, especially in the United States, there is no peer review involved. (Exercising the cat with a laser pointer is patented!) What I fail to see sources that prove the notability of the adjustable breast implant. I fail to see backup for the claim that it is either widely used or has revolutionized the field. As usual proof is with the person that submitted the article. Pilatus 05:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- What are you contesting? The procedure bears the guy's name. It is discussed in breast implant faqs on the net. It is used and studied all over the world. [[1]][[2]] -- JJay 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for being insistent, but it's the surgeon that is under consideration here, not the procedure/device that he invented. Unless he has something to speak for himself beyond the fact that he invented the adjustable implant this article should go. Pilatus 06:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Insistence is fine, but I completely disagree with you. I plan on resubmitting this. -- JJay 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- What are you contesting? The procedure bears the guy's name. It is discussed in breast implant faqs on the net. It is used and studied all over the world. [[1]][[2]] -- JJay 05:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: anyone who pays the application fee can receive a patent, especially in the United States, there is no peer review involved. (Exercising the cat with a laser pointer is patented!) What I fail to see sources that prove the notability of the adjustable breast implant. I fail to see backup for the claim that it is either widely used or has revolutionized the field. As usual proof is with the person that submitted the article. Pilatus 05:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have added a reference to the article. However, the text in some places seems similar to Becker's home page see [3]. I would appreciate someone having a look over it to see if it is a copyvio. If not, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article was extensively rewritten by the nom. Check edit history. -- JJay 06:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tagged as copyvio from [4]. Pilatus 11:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- This version of the article was a straight copy & paste from Becker's autobiography. Uncle G 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article was rewritten. That is an accepted way of dealing with copyvios. It could have been stubified. It could have been listed on the copyvio page. This was improperly deleted. -- JJay 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't rewritten, and no, that isn't accepted. Copyright violations are always removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. By policy, we do not include copyright violations or works derived from them. Uncle G 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are quite wrong. Was any attempt made to secure permission of use? This was completely irregular. -- JJay 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with our copyright policy. It is non-negotiable. Uncle G 19:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are quite wrong. Was any attempt made to secure permission of use? This was completely irregular. -- JJay 19:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't rewritten, and no, that isn't accepted. Copyright violations are always removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. By policy, we do not include copyright violations or works derived from them. Uncle G 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article was rewritten. That is an accepted way of dealing with copyvios. It could have been stubified. It could have been listed on the copyvio page. This was improperly deleted. -- JJay 16:41, 11 December 2005 (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.
