Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby Meltzer

Tagged as A7. Notability claimed (see talk). No vote, have at it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It would be ridiculous to delete this article about a surgeon of worldwide acclaim. Shame on anyone who deletes this article. He is even refered to in several other Wikipedia articles. One of the ironies of Wikipedia is that few people do this to puny minor Hollywood psuedo celebrities of little cultural significance. Meanwhile, somebody like Dr. Meltzer, a pioneering surgeon, known worldwide by people who ought to know about him, who spent decades in medical school and perfecting his craft, of important historical significance, gets put on this list by ignorant people without a clue. People need to STAND DOWN from this kind of Wiki behavior unless they can demonstrate some reliable reason for doing so. There is none in this case. Removing this article would violate written Wikipedia policy. Nobody commenting has shown good basis for removing it. I VOTE NO, regarding its removal. What kind of luddites are making these decisions? Who created this nomination, based on what research or criteria. Go check on the discussion on the article page about this.Janniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article and talk page discussion demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep re. my comments on the talk page. Relevant, notable and well-established in his field, Toby Meltzer is one of the United States' most well-known GRS surgeons - Alison^✍ 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep That first comment nearly convinced me to vote delete, it looked so much like the typical sockpuppet attack you see here. However I remembered seeing this guy on TV so keep. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, apparently not just "prominent" for sex-changes but opinionated in the various debates about it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot see evidence of WP:PROF here. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Providing some references for his key innovations (so we can judge their citation index) would be helpful to make me reconsider my vote. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a bunch of citations on the talk page. He's also featured prominently in the IJT - Alison^✍ 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. He only gets 7 citations on Medline, which is less than I'd expect for a surgeon of the pioneering status claimed. Can anyone point to an independent review, preferably in a peer-reviewed source, which asserts his importance? Espresso Addict 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You need to check the talk page for this entry. Toby Meltzer, MD has numerous articles in available through pubmed. Also because he is no longer a clinical professor, and is instead a practicing surgeon, is importance and reputation are based on his work, not on "publish or perish" pseudo importance. This surgeon's work is innovative and important, and important to people who read about the related wikipedia articles that mention him. And somebody removed my signature from my KEEP VOTE above.Janniejdoe^Janniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the edit history for this page. No one removed your signature from your "vote", but someone did add the {{unsigned}} tag after you forgot to sign. -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice towards recreation if references for key innovations are provided, as per JFW. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable per Wikipedia policy. As is, the article lacks reliable sources and citations for claims. The burden to verify is on the editor(s) who wish to include the information, not on the reader(s) to look elsewhere. (This edit by Janniejdoe is troubling in that it makes up 80% of the article and smacks of copy-and-paste.) -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Dr. Meltzer is an immensely notable doctor in the transcommunity, much like Marci Bowers and Stanley Biber. I am working with the article's editors to input reliable sources to back up some of the "pioneering technique" claims (So far all I've found where blogs, self-published sites and medical journals that you have to pay to access and verify). Some of the resources that I did find and add into the article gives ardent claim for notability-like performing 400-500 SRS surgeries a year. The source I added goes on to note that on average only 800-1100 are done in the US in a year. He also has numerous peer reviewed contibutions to notable medical journals. (See article's talk page and Google Scholar. Overall I think this article is a valuable entry in an area that is scarcely represented on Wikipedia due to systematic bias. It is not in a perfect state but the subject is certainly notable enough to deserve an entry. Agne 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability established through book references (added since AfD) and 2100+ Google hits. Meltzer does not grant media interviews and keeps a low profile, which may make him less visible than other surgeons, but he is probably the most prolific American specialist in these procedures working today. Article could use references for his cricothyroid approximation innovations as well. [1] Jokestress 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reading comments here and seeing the googles, he seems quite worthy Ekehoe 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is well-known in his field, has appeared in various television programmes and is one of the primary SRS surgeons in the US - Lyndau 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete As much as it pains me to give the black-ball to another Plastic Surgeon, with all due respect, as a practicing Plastic Surgeon myself, I'd submit that Dr. Meltzer is not someone widely known within the field of plastic surgery despite a clear expertise in a very specialized area. His academic work & writing are relatively modest and I'd submit he clearly falls short of professional noteriety to really merit an individual entry. A talented surgeon yes, but not someone I think most of his peers would single out as someone wiki-worthyDroliver 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point here is that WP is not peer-reviewed, thus the criteria are different. It's not that the guy is notable within his peers, but that he be publicly notable for some reason. So it's not the field of plastic surgery, but the field of SRS - Alison^✍ 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Comment Actually, Dr. Oliver's comment enhances Dr. Meltzer's encyclopedic worth by virtue of being an expert in (as you note) a very specialized area. In an area that is under-represented in Wikipedia (relevant to systematic bias), after the late Stanley Biber, Dr. Meltzer is probably the most notable SRS surgeon. He is certainly the most prolific in the US. In deleting this article, we sharply decrease Wikipedia's value in being a comprehensive source of knowledge in this area. Unless, of course, the area of GLBT related articles (and in particular transgender-related articles) is, in itself, not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Please don't interpret that as a Strawman because I'm not contending that anyone here is arguing that. Rather, I want to emphasize how relevant the Dr. Meltzer article is to Wikipedia's desire to overcome systematic bias and be a free source of knowledge to all--in all areas of encyclopedic merit. Agne 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your rationale somewhat. If we're to catalog contemporary or historic physicians, I think there must be some threshold as to someone's notability. In medicine you've got to assess their historic signifigance in the field, academic achievment (did they publish extensively or produce influential sentinal papers), professional status (were they leaders in their field) , and consider other ways for which they've gained noteriety. Dr. Meltzer is clearly not going to meet at least the first three of those milestones if you poll other surgeons I'd argue. A "comprehensive" source would certainly contain entries on transgender issues, but featuring a successful surgeon who performs the operation but is otherwise lacking in historic/professional stature is diluting things too much I submit. Again, it pains me to argue against inclusion of a physician someone has felt enough about to profile and this isn't a slight against Dr. Meltzer. Droliver 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely, sir. The problem with your rationale above centres around the "otherwise lacking" and "if you poll other surgeons". This is not peer-reviewed, firstly. Secondly, Dr. Meltzer is at the top of his specialised field and is thus notable. Thirdly, when I started the article, it was not that I "felt enough about" the subject, rather that WP was incomplete without mention of Dr. Meltzer for all the reasons I have previously stated. - Alison^✍ 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would concur with Ali. His stature among his peers is only relevant in the regard (in respects to notability) of whether or not he is viewed as an expert in his field. I would think a Biologist specializing in elements of Creationism is not highly noted for "historic/professional stature" among other biologists, however if those biologist concede that he is the "expert creationist" in their field then he has notability in his field for the benefit of a wikipedia. Remember, wikipedia is geared towards the reader and those who will be moved to want to research and look up such information in an encyclopedia. There are far more people interested in who is the expert of SRS surgery then in "who do the plastic surgeons regard highly among their peers". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think this is someone that in a non-notable (see WP:Bio). Wikipedia doesn't have the bounds of a normal encyclopedia-- but at the same time I don't think it should be the place to look-up super-specialized surgeons that may be well-known in their super-specialized field. Sexual reassignment, I think, borders on non-notable (WP:Notable). Why write a bio on someone in a field that barely makes it on the radar? I think this article pales in comparison to Gary K. Michelson --even though it is written a lot better. Also, I think Meltzer pales in comparison to say Stuart W Jamieson -- another surgeon that does a slightly less obscure surgery (pulmonary thromboendarterectomy) and doesn't have a WP entry. Nephron  T|C 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to contend that Sexual reassignment is non-notable then your delete vote would be supported by that contention. However, I think you are mistaking in that regard. Compared to your pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, "sexual reassignment" -wikipedia gets 101,000 ghits. "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" -wikipedia gets 30,200. In Google news, "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" gets 0 hits. "Sexual reassignment" gets 58. This minor comparison also doesn't take into consideration that often "sexual reassignment" is shorthanded to "SRS" or "GRS". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point about Google is mute. If you search for anything related to sex-- it will give you more hits. Some would say the internet was invented for porn. If you're talking medical literature-- the situation is the reverse. A search on PubMed for "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" yields 202 hits versus for 104 "sexual reassignment".

Any case, if "...only patients with symptomatic acute pulmonary emboli are counted, approximately 2500 individuals would progress to chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in the United States each year." [2] We're talking the same order (of magnitude) here. It is like breast cancer and prostate cancer-- they kill about the same number per year... but you're more likely to find info on breast cancer[3] than prostate cancer [4] 55 million vs. 19 million hits. Nephron  T|C 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I will note that my search was done in "quotes" which meant the results were specific to the type of surgery looking for--not just random sex stuff. Secondly, take a step back for a moment and think what is more likely to be searched for on Wikipedia. An article on SRS or Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy? Conversely, would an article on the most notable SRS surgeon or most notable Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy surgeon get the most interest by readers and editors? Agne 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that SRS is a rare bird and that a Google search is not necessarily a good representation. Any case, I see the cruft (WP:CRUFT) will likely stay-- it seems WP has critical mass of SRS enthusiasts. It's just like how the inventor of Neuticles got their own article. I suppose it could be said that one person's cruft is another person's gemstone... and admitedly I've probably written more than my share of medicinecruft articles... so I'll leave it at that. Nephron  T|C 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, that's "sex reassignment" (sexual means something quite different to sex). Google responds with 230,000 hits for that, and goognews gets 130, which is far more representative. - Alison^✍ 04:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! You're right. Thanks for catching my gaffe and your right. That is a far more compelling representation. Agne 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In my opinion, the only medical procedure more controversial than sex reassignment is abortion. With how much various groups that are a part of the religious right get riled up by the concept of SRS, the surgery is, in my mind more notable than a "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" or most other procedures. Given the controversial nature of the operation, I feel that the surgeon that appears responsible for around 50% of the surgeries is notable enough for inclusion. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the person is notable and well established in his feild plus many book references Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my esteemed colleagues above. --Myles Long 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... I personally know one patient who flew 1200 miles for surgery by this guy.  ALKIVAR™ 03:19, 22 September 2006 (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.