Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey A. Klein, MD

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, consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey A. Klein, MD

Jeffrey A. Klein, MD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested speedy A7. Biography of a non-notable person written up by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If his book is published by Mosby, this suggests that he is notable. Mosby is a medical publisher, and it does not publish nonsense. --Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lead is sourced to an unpublished "personal interview", and the rest of the article ("Education and Training") sure looks like a direct transcription of book-jacket copy. If this fellow actually is notable, his article is going to need a total rewrite. Deor (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Flagrant spam, copyvio. Yanksox (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The article needs lots of cleanup, but this guy is one of the innovators in cosmetic plastic surgery, and is highly highly notable. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A google search for "Klein Method Tumescent" comes u with over 14,000 hits, which show widespread use of his technique upon plastic surgeons. here's one really good source right here, which also cites to the proper medical journals discussing his investigations in the ratios of lidocaine, saline, and epinephrine. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I just did a Google search for "Klein Method Tumescent" (as cited above) and I got a grand total of one hit -- from the entry cited above! LOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    Take off the quotation marks.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not much help, either. There is a ton of repetition, with sites repeating text from earlier sites. That's no way to measure notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    Given the overwhelming weight of sources provided here, I think any attempt to say that he's non-notable is both futile and ignorant. This guy is the monster in the field of lipoplasty. That's undeniable. Claiming he barely qualifies for footnote consideration in his field is both factually inaccurate, and ignorant of academic practices. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Please don't call me "ignorant" -- it is possible to have a difference of opinion without making personal attacks and demeaning commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. I did not call you ignorant. I called the viewpoint that he is non-notable ignorant. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • An intelligent discussion gains no value when people use the word "ignorant" to attack someone else's opinion. Keep it civil, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Worldcat lists 26 copies of the book at libraries in the United States and 4 in the United Kingdom. AMICUS searching by ISBN-10 on the entire AMICUS database lists 1 library in Canada, CISTI, Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. This may not be enough to qualify him, but the fact that this is a medical book rather than a mass-market one should be taken into consideration. --Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found two reviews of the book in medical journals, and that (together with the other comments by participants in this AfD) convinces me that notability has been established. Could the closer please undelete Tumescent Technique for liposuction, a related article, and the article to which it is a redirect? --Eastmain (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. His books have obviously been reviewed by reliable third party publications, so there is notability. However any copyright violations, etc., should be addressed ASAP. Also, to the nominator, COI is not permissible as grounds for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Medline finds around 20 research papers by JA Klein directly related to plastic surgery (he may also have contributions on other topics but there are several JA Kleins), including one letter to NEJM and several invited reviews. His top citations in Google Scholar are 258, 214, 198, 148 [1], which are very much above average for surgery articles. A review in Anesthesia Analgesia states "His large-dose lidocaine anesthesia tumescent technique is becoming, or has become, a standard in the liposuction community."[2]. His textbook on the technique is published by a reputable medical publisher and has been reviewed in the appropriate specialist medical journals. He is/was a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Guidelines/Outcomes Committee (PMID 11511843). Seems to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: 20 mentions for a breakthrough surgical technique is tantamount to zero. An established researcher's vita will be about 20-40 pp. long with publications. The references here are to personal interviews, and everything about the article seems to be pumping up business. If the technique (with its camel case naming) is, in fact, a breakthrough, then the technique would get a write up. The person would not, unless he had much, much, much, much more of a career. At this point, this looks for all the world like trying to drum up business. Furthermore, the person at the center of this article does not look like he stands out among surgeons, which would be the requirement for "notable" in his case. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, according to his CV it's closer to 40. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the 20 papers passage from Espresso Addict's post. He meant that there were at least 20 papers written by JA Klein himself on the subject of plastic surgery. The number of references to Klein's work is much higher. Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - A badly-written article focusing on someone who barely qualifies for footnote consideration in his field. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I believe that this article is relevant in the field of liposuction, as the doctor is the inventor of tumescent anesthesia, he is an active speaker on the topic, and is easily recognizable by any dermatologist or plastic/cosmetic surgeon that performs liposuction. He is credited on liposuction.com as being the inventor of liposuction totally by local anesthesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: above statement is by author of the article, and (based on the name) is an indicator of blatant WP:COI. This does not, however, render the subject non-notable and there might be hope for the article pending a cleanup. --Kinu t/c 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: Comment -- Kinu, above, is correct, I am the original author of the article, and my comments may pose a conflict of interest, but I was invited to post my views on this page by KurtRaschke, and I maintain that this topic has great relevance. With time and further contributions, I believe this article will become very thorough and relevant. The wonderful thing about wikipedia is user contribution and editing. I have seen some EXCELLENT updates to this article since the time I first wrote it, and I hope to see many more to come. In addition, I ask that if this article IS deemed acceptable to keep, I would like the articles [Tumescent liposuction] and [Tumescent Technique] to be undeleted, as Eastmain has requested, so that others may contribute to them, as they are directly related to Dr. Klein's specialty and relevant in and of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Addition Dr. Jeffrey Klein, is recognized on CNN'S 20/20 (<---video) and on Larry King Live. I beleive this satisfies the standard of notability. I feel that this article, and all other related articles about tumescent anesthesia and tumescent liposuction should be UNdeleted and expanded upon by the Wikipedia community. Lukeklein (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Getting interviews on TV shows is a tribute to the doctor's publicist only. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs substantial clean-up, but the subject is certainly notable. The GoogleScholar search[3] in Espresso Addict's post produces impressive citation results, with top citation hits of 258, 214, 205, 198, 148, 104. That is proof enough for me of having made substantial impact in his field. Satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Info on the subject Anyone can find the doctors Curriculum Vitae here. There is a wealth of information regarding the doctor, including his scientific publications, professional associations, and academic certifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeklein (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Lukeklein (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Subject in question is notable (and well known in the medical field and dermatologic community). Dr. Klein is the originator of the Tumescent technique [4], which is referenced in Wikipedia's entry on Liposuction [5]. It is valuable to note innovators in the field of medicine.--Procession (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — Procession (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Deletebeing mentioned in a journal, publishing a book or inventing something, or all of the above, are not, by themselves, valid reasons to keep. Granted this guy has done stuff, but none of it noteworthy enough to warrent his own entry in a major encyclopedia.RaseaC (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Being mentioned repeatedly over and over, however, is notable, especially when the technique is named after him, and is gold standard for that kind of treatment. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Response Granted, being mentioned in a journal, publishing a book, or inventing something is not by itself a valid reason to keep, but all three may be, certainly more keepable than THIS Jeff Klein, some guy from a band no one has heard of, yet passed the standards. Dr. Klein's contributions have changed the way liposuction is performed by an immeasurable amount of doctors all over the world. I also think that many of the nay-sayers here are "digitally biased". If they can't find a thousand hits on someone with a google search, a person isn't relevant to them. I'd like someone to check some people in the MEDICAL FIELD, specifically cosmetic surgeons, to see if Jeffrey A. Klein is notable and relevant. The web and google searching is not the end-all of relevancy. Lukeklein (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Original author of article.
    • Response There are a number of less notable physicians, such as John Converse, Wallace Chang, Richard Battle, Anthony A. Goodman, and John C._Oakley, whose articles have been permitted to remain on Wikipedia. There are also entries on several surgions (e.g. Robert H. Miller, Charles K. Herman) whose entires serve as little more than glorified C.V.s. Additionally there are mere stubs of articles about surgeons such as Linda_Li - whose only notability arises out of her appearances on the television show Dr._90210. There is little to no evidence on Wikipedia to suggest that she is in any way as notable as Dr. Klein in the medical field. If Dr. Klein's entry is not kept, then all of the aforementioned articles need to be reviewed and considered for deletion A cursory search on Google of both “Jeffrey Klein” and “liposuction” [6] provides thousands of webpage hits, a number which often far exceeds the number of hits garnered by the physicians mentioned above. However, the true proof of his notability comes in the form of his inclusion in the “Historical Atlas of Dermatology and Dermatologists” by Crissey et al.[7] The entry, entitled “Jeffrey A. Klein and Tumescent Liposuction,” can be found on page 200. Amazon’s listing of the book allows the user to search the contents of the book[8], if you wish to verify his inclusion in the text. Given that he is PROMINENT enough to be featured in a historical overview of advancements to dermatology, I believe that his inclusion in Wikipedia is appropriate. In addition to this, nearly all notable texts on the subject of liposuction cite Dr. Klein as the inventor of the tumescent technique, and refer to his innovations as changing the protocol for the way liposuction is performed nearly the world over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procession (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep on the basis of the book reviews and the citations. I am extremely skeptical about articles on plastic surgeons. More than any other field of medicine, they rely upon publicity to attract patients, and I therefore discount almost totally accounts in newspapers and the like about how notable they are, because anyone with common sense knows perfectly well how they get written. And I dislike some of the arguments above. The WP section on his form of liposuction is referenced only to a commercial website. And it was written by user:Lukeklein, so it counts for nothing whatsoever in addition to this article. But the book review [9] written by someone singularly hostile to both him and his book the book does refer to him as the leader in this particular technique & that the technique is well-known. DGG (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • RE: Reluctant Keep Dr. Klein is NOT a plastic surgeon, which is a significant feature in his notoriety. He is a Dermatologist and a Dermatologic Surgeon. Please read his CV more closely, available on the wiki page. Lukeklein (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Original author of article
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not appropriate for commercial purposes. Could have an article on the technique, not on the person. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Response How did Jonas Salk get into this discussion? Dr. Salk was eons removed from this guy. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment was that we should have an article on the technique, not the person. However, my response was that in many cases, the person developing the technique is also notable, such as Dr. Salk. Dr. Klein is likewise notable. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response Comparing Klein to Salk is a highly subjective notion. Let's stick to facts, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Klein to Salk is not the point. Comparing the concept that the designer of a notable medical breakthrough can be notable for that design, and therefore merit an article of his own beyond that of the breakthrough's article, is the point. Hence, why Salk has an article of his own for developing the Salk vaccine, or how Jose Barraquer merits an article for developing LASIK along with Rangaswamy Srinivasan, or Mani Lal Bhaumik developed the first Excimer laser, along with Nikolay Basov. Klein is just as much of an innovator in his particular medical field (dermatology, plastic surgery and lipoplasty) as these men were in opthamology ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Response Sorry, but that is still a chalk-and-cheese comparison. Klein improved upon existing procedures relating to liposuction, where as Salk & Co. pioneered new horizons in life-and-death medical care (which liposuction is not). There's a big difference between being the first in a field and polishing up existing work. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Re: Ecoleetage, Dr. Klein didn't improve on an existing procedure. Liposuction isn't the point here. Liposuction was the first application, but tumescent anesthesia is a revolutionary step forward in patient safety. Just using liposuction as an example, classical liposuction under general anesthesia was highly shocking to patients systems, regularly requiring IV fluid or blood transfers, and causing a much higher rate of operative and post operative complications (as compared to liposuction under tumescent anesthesia), not to mention the risks of GENERAL ANESTHESIA alone. People can just stop breathing if they aren't carefully monitored by an anesthesiologist. But those same safer applications of LOCAL ANESTHESIA in liposuction apply to vein surgery, large area (sub)cutaneous tumors, etc. Lidocaine had basically only been used to remove moles and drill cavities before Dr. Klein. His work HAS SAVED LIVES. Don't be distracted by it's original application. Look at where the method is and where it's going. Lukeklein (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm the original author, and I already voted, but KEEP in light of New Evidence. Wikipedia says in it's Articles for deletion that, and I quote "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Be objective. Does this article have potential? I believe it does, and so would most practicing cosmetic surgeons, whether they be dermatologists, plastic surgeons, OBGYNs, or whatever specialty they may have. They would all say it's relevant and notable Lukeklein (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggested course of action Okay, then how is this for a compromise? Get the person who started this AfD to withdraw it. Rewrite the article, as you suggested. Then we can haul it up the flagpole and see who salutes it. Is that fair? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: Suggested Course of action - Geez, Ecoleetage, there's no need to get touchy about this stuff. This is a discussion forum for mature people to debate the validity of an article. People with opposing views are the norm, and if someone makes a point that can be refuted, then refuting that claim only goes towards a sounder judgment on the administrator's behalf. The people that disagree with you here aren't trying to be combative. We are just addressing the perfectly valid points that you raised with, what we feel are, thorough answers. We don't make the final choices here. We aren't Simmon Cowell. We just want our voices to be heard. Now lets keep the remainder of the discussion focused on whether or not Jeffrey A. Klein deserves a wikipedia article, not flagpoles and salutes. I, for one, won't participate in any further banter. Lukeklein (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Lukeklein, you had stated that you may have a COI. Would you please state the nature of the possible COI without relaying personal information about yourself or Dr. Klein? IE: family member, friend, employee, etc. Adam in MO Talk 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to response English may not be my primary language, but I thought my intentions were very clear: get the AfD withdrawn, rewrite the article, then make sure there is no cause for debate. I wasn't being combative -- I was trying to help you. As the article is presented, the case for notability is very flimsy and you have more than a few people who would not mind seeing it deleted. But a stronger rewrite by someone with no COI could make this a better article that would not be penetrated by doubts on the subject. Heck, I would rewrite it for you if you got the AfD withdrawn -- is that combative?Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there is anything notable about the matter, it is the technique rather than the person. The article should be about the first rather than the second. I note that on one website (http://www.lipoinfo.com/chap02.htm) there appears to be a claim that Klein was not the sole inventor and pioneer of the technique. Until matters of priority are resolved Wikipedia should not carry claims and should not be used as a forum for priority battles, which could have legal implications. It would be best to remove the article until the matter is determined. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Uh, absolutely not. We do not remove articles because of off-wiki legal implications. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is 'We', or is this the royal usage? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Clearly, 'We' refers to the Wikipedia community. It is inconsistent with the WP practices and policies to remove an entire article about a controversial subject just because the subject is controversial and may be involved in a legal action. Many controversies take years and decades to resolve (and are some are never fully resolved at all). That is not a good reason not to have a WP entry about the subject in the meantime, and that is not what 'we' do here. Of course, if the claim to being a sole inventor of something is disputed and there is a reliable source to cite regarding this, this fact needs to be mentioned in the article in an appropriate way. I looked up the link [10]. There is no indication there of a legal dispute or even of an ongoing controversy regarding the priority claims. In fact, the website sounds extremely complimentary and sympathetic to Klein. Nsk92 (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification of We. I assume that User:Swatjester (if I have interpreted his signature correctly) concurs with your interpretation of his words. Citation to relevant WP practices and policies would lend support to your argument. The relevant extract from the web site [11] is "Dr. Jeffrey Klein, a California Dermatologist, and Dr. Patrick Lillis, another Dermatologist, invent and pioneer the Original (Klein) Tumescent Technique". Xxanthippe (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep per SWATJester. Yes, the article is currently in poor shape, but give it a chance. Yes, the article's author probably has a WP:COI; however, I have seen in the past that this doesn't justify deletion. (I once AfD'ed an article because it was written almost exclusively by the spouse of the subject and the decision then was that the COI wasn't grounds for deletion as the subject's notability merited an article.) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:58, 18 April 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.