Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Marshall

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 no consensus, article needs cleanup. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Marshall

Trevor Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article about Trevor Marshall needs to be removed. He is a scientist who is currently working on a hypothesis that has not been embraced by peer based review. I feel that he or someone close to hime is trying to push his case using wikipedia.
1. WP:NOT#OR
2. WP:NOT#SOAP
Also refer to Talk:sarcoidosis
The following sources have been critical of Trevor Marshall: [[1]](Authoritative BMJ source) [[2]]
His own websites, including a resume are: [[3]] [[4]] Note the similarity to the discussed Wikipedia entry
A man with two or three PubMed publications should not be on Wikipedia. Savisha 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The user already has his user-site on wikipedia on which he argues his hypothesis. It can be found on User:Trevmar.--Savisha 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - OR at its best, vanity at its worst. Delete as nn. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The more poorly understood the condition, the more odd hypotheses and unproven treatments arise. If the treatments are barely notable, the inventor is even less so. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to detract slightly from the apparent consensus. Please note that I have no affiliation with the above person, and had never heard of him prior to this morning. However, upon reviewing his recent publication list, I feel that Savisha's comment, though well-intended, is misleading: "A man with two or three PubMed publications...". More important is the fact that he has published in two of the five most prominant medical journals that exist, mainly the CMAJ and The Lancet, and thus, in my opinion, is entitled to a brief article that is neutral in nature and adequately presents both sides of whichever controversal hypothesis he argues. --JE.at.UWOU|T 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to say that I have no personal issue with that man. However I do have a problem with him advertising his methods on Wikipedia - He and his colleauge have tried to include the treatment (for which he has no accepted publication not to speak of a randomised controlled trial) in the article for Sarcoidosis. The two publications you are referring to are both short responses to articles, they are not true publications.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This appears to be a content dispute about a researcher whose notability is established. Saying "He is wrong" is not a good basis for deletion. Go and edit boldly or do RfC. Edison 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying he is wrong. He has not published anything important to be notable. And what is clear, is that his treatment, which he is so proud of has not been proven scientifically by Trials.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that I really wanted to get involved in this, but in my dealings with this individual I did do a PubMed search (which I have pasted below). You can clearly see that the "papers" published in CMAJ and the Lancet are not papers but are, in fact, author replies (i.e. usually disagreement with what the authors of the papers did publish).

  1. Trevor Marshall. Are statins analogues of vitamin D? Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1234; author reply 1235. No abstract available. PMID: 17027719
  2. Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID: 16403216
  3. Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID: 15246025
  4. Marshall TG. Puzzling vitamin D results. CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):849; author reply 849-50. No abstract available. PMID: 12406940
So in reality that is just two papers, and one of these is in a highly specialized journal. I disagree with the inclusion of his aggrandizing, soapbox type article, and I do not think that he is anymore notable as a scientist than thousands of other people. Delete Just my $0.02.--DO11.10 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and slightly embarrased:) in my (premature) statement that he had published the papers in CMAJ and The Lancet. I suppose this is what I get for trying to edit on wikipedia during exam time! Anyway, if it can be established that he has insignificant notoriety then I say delete it. I would be in favour of adding a section on either sarcodiosis or vitamin D to something to the effect of: Researchers have also proposed blah blah blah treatment, etc (Marshall T et al.) and then site his journal or something. --JE.at.UWOU|T 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge. Nobody has yet mentioned the WP requirements for balanced coverage. We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. What we do is include a mention of them in the article on the disease or the theory, of proportional importance as judged by those editing there. As for the person, he needs more than this, right or wrong.DGG 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems I will need to add a few things in the view of the above comments.
  • Dr Marshall (PhD in electric engineering/diabetes) and a user called Palbert have already tried to include their views on the articles on Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, and their views have been rightly not allowed to be included in the content. For the disscussions please see Talk:Sarcoidosis and Talk:Vitamin D
  • I will take Sarcoidosis as an example. I am myself no big fan of corticosteroids, and I embrace the fact that Dr Marshall is hypothesising a different aetiology and treatment. This is worth looking for, and the Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 4th ed. does suggest a protoplast form of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as one of several possibilities. Now the problem: T Marshall is selling his treatment as being for Sarcoidosis, he has not published ANYTHING for that in peer-review journals. However, there has been Published literature on alternatives to corticosteroids one of the more notable authors being [R.P. Baughman], who recently even published [an article] in the Lancet. If you want too beef up the Sarcoidosis article I would suggest you add people like Baughman rather that Marshall.
  • Lastly, why I got involved in this. I belive that the greatest danger for Wikipedia are not vandals or editors who post hoaxes. In a specialist field like medicine, people like Trevor Marshall or whoever wrote the article are far more dangerous - his article on himself looks very professional, and he uses what looks like scientific papers to back up his arguments (some of these he published in a journal he set up himself). To a lay user, who has sarcoidosis, for example, this may look very serious, and he may be fooled. He will then go onto Marshall's website and maybe even join his therapy, for which there is not a hint of scientific evidence (Please remember that a significant result in a Randomised controlled trial is needed to verify a treatment).
  • Marshall seems to be very keen on putting his point forward, and his contributions have been doubtful at times: [[5]],[[6]. He has however been very active on the internet, and his wikipedia activity as well as his webpages are a testimony to this: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]. He also not an academic at any University, but rather set up his own institute, with a few nurses.
  • Marshall's Protocol seems to be a wonder treatment for [many diseases] including Crohn's, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Sarcoidosis etc. see link.
  • Marshall's Protocol is not alone in the world of unproven and unpublished hypotheses. There are many other so called Protocols as exemplified by this [this website] on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Are you going to include Marshall and all other Protocols? None of them are proven scientifically. Or are you going to include Marshall because his internet presence is more bold? There are so many more important things than his small-print research.
  • Finally @DGG: You say that We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. 1. What do you base his public attention on? His own publicity on himself? 2. In science I think that it IS important whether someone has been embraced by peer-based-review or has not been able to publish because his articles were seen as not up to the standard. I do not believe we are here to publish random hypotheses. Especially if you look at the Articles for Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, they include the barest minimum of information including a random hypothesis might lead a lay user to the idea that Marshall's small print stuff is mainstream!
  • What is also funny, someone has added him as a notable producer of Home-made synthesizers on Wikipedia Synthesizer#Homemade_synthesizers. He is an electrical engineer, and as a medic I cannot assess whether his home-made synthesizer was more important than other ones in the history of these things.
Sorry for the lengthly elaboration. If users were reading the links, it would be much easier to argue. I think the whole thing is VANITY and he does not deserve a single mention on Wikipedia.--Savisha 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional keep - the subject of the article appears to be notable and the article is well-sourced, but I agree with the tag at the top that it reads far too much like the subject's resume. This article should be kept, but it needs a complete rewrite by someone who is prepared to make it less like a vanity page or something advertising the article's subject. JROBBO 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Marshall's entry is not an attempt to disparage other researchers or ideas about treating chronic illness. It is simply a professionally written article intended to make people aware of the fact that Marshall is a significant figure in the world of chronic disease. Thousands of people are currently applying Marshall's treatment plan towards diseases which are painful, and in many cases deadly (particularly Sarcoidosis, a rare lung disease). Take a long look at www.marshallprotocol.com to understand how many people's lives revolve around Marshall's scientific breakthroughs. The MP website has 80,000 posts. That's a lot of feedback by patients undergoing treatment. It would be very strange indeed to tell the thousands of patients doing the Marshall Protocol (who firmly believe that the treatment is drastically altering their quality of life) that the founder of the MP is not a person of note.

The Marshall Protocol is being used by physicians and patients in many countries around the world. A quick Google search for "Marshall Protocol" brings up 12,300 entries, demonstrating that the MP is not only a treatment option in the United States, but recognized internationally.

It is important to realize that Marshall charges no fee to the patients benefiting from his scientific breakthroughs. Patients are only required to understand that they are subjects in a Phase II study about the MP that is being done in conjunction with the FDA. Thus, the FDA not only is aware of this treatment, but is working closely with Marshall to monitor its outcome. In fact Marshall was invited by the FDA to make a presentation in their "Visiting Professor" lecture series.

I suppose an argument could be made that Marshall's views on chronic disease are not correct. However it then makes little sense that his presence in high demand at science colloquia and conferences. Marshall has been publishing scientific papers for the last 25 years. Last month Marshall was offered the position of adjunct professor at an Australian University.

It seems that a fair share of the scientific community is very interested in Marshall's work and his connections with prominent doctors and scientists continue to grow by the day. He's a man with novel ideas who seems to be on the rise in the scientific world. Perhaps we should hesistate before removing the bio of a person who is touching the life of so many people who are so very ill. Sazevedo 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the man is doing good works or not is not the question. --Wooty Woot? contribs 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the page just needs to be cleaned up so as not to be WP:SOAP. And while my interpretation of WP:OR doesn't proclude research just because it's controversal, I think it is not in the Wiki spirit to write about your own research or biography. If you or your research is notable then it will be writen about by someone else. I think this also includes parties within an arm's reach, such as a coleague. Anyway, i tried to clean up the intro a bit to get rid of some weasel words, etc, but I have finals to study for ... though that hasn't stopped me much anyway ;) I have to agree with Wooty though, it isn't about what good he has done. I'm sure that a lot of people that feel they have been saved by his treatment no doubt want to let others know about it, and I don't blame them, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote opinions or beliefs, no matter how well-intentioned. Providing lots of information, with the caveat that all medical decisions should be made through discussion with a family doctor, would be most appropriate in situations such as these. -- JE.at.UWOU|T 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Person has not been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the person. -- Satori Son 13:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep

I was surprised when I noticed this article was marked for deletion. Dr. Marshall is a notable person, and a brief Wikipedia entry is appropriate. Marshall meets the criteria for notability in his field, which is suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) - a Google search for “Trevor Marshall” results in a distinguished number of hits, showing that Marshall is an 'important figure' and is regarded as a 'significant expert in their area' by physicians worldwide (criteria 1 and 2). - Marshall originated the important new concept that dysregulated vitamin D production in humans results in negative changes to the effectiveness of innate immunity and ability to kill bacterial invaders. - Marshall has contributed to refining the use of molecular modeling to evaluate the effects of drugs. As a result of his work, the FDA invited him to make a presentation on the use of molecular genomics and computer modeling, in their “Visiting Professor” lecture series (criteria 7) - His 1983 paper on insulin infusion at PMID 6662523 (available on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed index website) is a significant academic work (criteria 4) as it has been significantly cited by other researchers (source: Science Citations Index). - There is a medical procedure named after Marshall. The "Marshall Protocol" refers to the use of specific dosing of selected antibiotics in combination with an angiotensin receptor blocker. It was actually the physicians and patients using this treatment who began calling it the Marshall Protocol, not Dr. Marshall himself. That name itself is not self promotion. A search for "MarshallProtocol" on Google yields 12,300 hits, and also demonstrates international notoriety (criteria 10).

The existing article doesn’t do a good job of nailing down the fact that Trevor Marshall has developed and used advanced technology for a broad range of innovative applications over more than 25 years. His work has influenced - music (see Wikipedia: Synthesizer). - computing (1993 Eddy Award for Mac User) (http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ ). Another source says Trevor Marshall pioneered modem technologies in Australia. http://www.kashum.com/blog/1097889803 - antennas (Marshall's WiFi antenna designs have met wide acclaim) (Google for "Trevor Marshall" WiFi) - medicine (Based on Marshall's work, the US FDA has designated the drugs Minocycline and Clindamycin as orphan drugs for use in treating Sarcoidosis).

The markup in Wikipedia editing is rather intimidating, but I will be happy to assist in editing this article, or in finding someone else who can work on editing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.68.204.205 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Sarabrate 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Sorry! I wasn't signed in when I posted.

I'm confused about some of the statements posted after my reply. After reading the bio I did not get the impression that it was written by Marshall himself or even his colleagues. I see no statements that reflect any sort of vanity or a desire to "promote" the scientific concepts in the piece. The author of the bio seemed rather objective in my eyes. For example the author does not even claim that Marshall himself believes his protocol has cured patients. It simply states that some patients "claim" to have recovered. I see no statements which say the MP is the ONLY treatment for chronic disease, the best treatment...or anything along those lines. What I do see is a very carefully cited description of the basic concepts of Marshall's scientific discoveries that are essential to state if the reader is to understand WHY he has spent the last decade developing a novel treatment protocol for chronic illness. The science comes straight from medical journals which do not publish "opinions or beliefs." They publish..science. Again I remind you that Marshall is working with the FDA. I'm not sure the FDA conducts Phase II trials based on opinions.

JE-Kudos on balancing finals and wiki work! I think it is reasonable to include a statement that all medical decisions should be made with a family doctor. But I want to clarify that patients on the MP are already required to make decisions with a doctor. Marshall himself is not a medical doctor (he has a PhD in biomedical research). Thus, he cannot prescribe medication. Patients on the MP need to take several medicines aviliable only with a prescription (antibiotics etc). Thus, every person on the MP is already currently working with a doctor who understands and consents to the treatment. That's quite a few doctors around the world who are using the protocol. In regards to your corrections of the first paragraph, I feel it goes a bit overboard. Give the reader a little credit! I think they can certainly infer from the original piece that the MP is one of many treatments for chronic disease. I also think readers can infer on their own that the treatment is controversial, seeing as there are no statements in the piece that even come close to saying that the MP is the only treatment option for sarcoidosis etc.

Look who posted here:

  • Sarabrate and Sazavedo are both users who joined just to write these arguments.
  • See their contributions at Special:Contributions/Sazevedo and Special:Contributions/Sarabrate.
  • Could someone check the IPs? I have a suspicion that they could be the same person - check timeline!
  • I do not believe that Trevor Marshall did not contribute to his own biography on Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors) does not apply to Trevor Marshall, he is not an MD. The page is INACTIVE anyways. He is a scientist and did his PhD at an Electrical Engineering faculty on the topic of Diabetes. WP:NOR, WP:AUTO and WP:BIO applies. He does not pass these.
  • Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) is not policy but is getting towards a consensus. It could serve as a rough guideline.

--Savisha 21:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • keep: Clearly an important scientist, given the attention he has garnered from medical journals and regulatory agencies. Whether simply a content dispute or just another attempt at suppression, an AfD is inappropriate. Ombudsman 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relisting admin's comment:
    • Despite much discussion, there is still no consensus about the notability of the subject, which seems to be the key issue here. I believe some more detailed opinions on why his scholarly contributions and the third-party coverage about him (or the lack thereof) make him notable (or not) would help here.
    • However, alleged misconduct on the part of the subject (such as two single purpose accounts, which should be discounted, participating in the above discussion) is not grounds for deletion of the article about him, but for warnings and/or blocks if need be. Sandstein 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the discussion: 'Ombudsman' gave a concise characterization of what this discussion is really about - suppression. Marshall has attracted attention from the medical community and regulatory agencies, making his work scientifically notable. Although I am a newbie, (contributing small bits on various topics for a while, but only formally registered in August), the insinuation that my contributions are sub-par spurred me to do what no one else has apparently been willing to do: take a look at Google!

There was evidence of people around the world discussing the medical treatment attributed to Trevor Marshall. Examples:
Video clips http://www.ctlymedisease.org/videoclips.htm
Overview of speakers http://www.cfidsinsights.com/lyme.pdf
  • Summary of a presentation at the annual CCMRF Conference in Windsor, Ontario, August 26-28, 2005
http://www.ra-infection-connection.com/free_articles/CCMRF05article.htm
Besides contributions in medicine and medical technology already mentioned in the article and on this discussion page, sources for notable work in other areas include:
  • Antenna: Trevor Marshall’s antenna designs
http://www.paramowifix.net/antenas/guiaondas_marshall.html
Personal Telco Project http://wiki.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/WirelessLinks
Slot waveguide and tiny biquad antenna http://www.cromwell-intl.com/SECURITY/monitoring.html
biquad wifi projects on the web are based on Trevor Marshall’s antenna: http://www.jsuh.com/rss/author/Eliot_Phillips
Trevor Marshall built one of the first biquad WiFi antennas found on the internet, according to: http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/15/how-to-build-a-wifi-biquad-dish-antenna/3
Byte magazine http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7801/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
Keep - definitely notable and worthy of a listing. The text needs work, but that's a different issue. Sarabrate 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- clearly a snake oil salesman.--Grahamec 13:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is one of notablility here. I will try to explain why T Marshall is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia, in my opinion. Please read this especially if you are a non-scientist.

  • The first thing we need to realise is that T Marshall in Wikipedia is not a media personality but is portrayed/portrays himself as a scientist. I believe this makes a big difference to notability criteria.
  • I think what is most important to understand in this context is the concept of Evidence-based medicine and scientific peer-review. This means that in scientific journals, a board of editors looks at the submitted work and analyses it from a viewpoint of scientific validity. For medicine, the main source of authoritative journals is PubMed, if a journal is not on Pubmed, it is unlikely to be important.
  • T Marshall has published five articles to be found on PubMed. Two of these are just author responses, thus only short letters referring to other people's publications. The remaining three are in specialist journals - which means they are not the most groundbreaking discoveries. If a scientist discovers something really important he publishes in Nature, the BMJ, The Lancet etc. And the volume of Marshall's work isn't really breathtaking either - not few of my medical student friends have one or two scientific publications on PubMed.
  • T Marshall has tried to publish in the BMJ 3 times and admits to this in a BMJ internet-reply - his works were rejected by BMJ-reviewers because they were of "limited interest" and "added little to existing knowledge".
  • T Marshall publishes regularly in a 'journal' edited and reviewed by himself, a pracice which does not put his professionalism into the best light - [[10]]. Some of the links in the Wikipedia article about him link to this 'journal'.
  • What about the other links that Sarabrate posted above? Well, from a scientific point of view these aren't really notable - they are far less likely to have factual and scientific content. They should not be taken into account when assessing Marshall's scientific notability. If you want a comparision to journalism - this is like writing for a community newsletter. One of them is the Wikipedia synthesizer page copied onto a html page, two are connected to a local Lyme disease movement etc.
  • If you care you can take a look at the contributions of Special:Contributions/Sazevedo, Special:Contributions/Sarabrate, Special:Contributions/Trevmar (T Marshall himself) and Special:Contributions/Palbert(seems to be P Albert, a man closely working with T Marshall). You will notice they are very similar indeed in response style, and all accounts try to promote T Marshall on Wikipedia. They all clearly have very good knowledge and very high affection for him. My question is: Who is Who? Make your own mind.
  • One final note: Sarabrate has inquired into my contributions. I do not have anything to hide and I openly admit that I asked DO11.10 and JFW | T@lk to join this debate. If you think this is questionable practice please contact them or disregard their votes. Also you might notice, that most I have done in WP is linked to this discussion. This is because I was struck by the fact that someone could be pushing pseudoscience via Wikipedia so effectively. I am a medical student and have no other interest in this debate other than making WP more evidence-based and a little less random.

And finally, I would like to appeal to users who vote keep (other than Sarabrate, Trevmar et al), to give an argumentation which also touches on the issue of notability of scientists and Evidence-based medicine in relation to T Marshall. Delete--Savisha 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment as I have already voted to delete.

Savisha is correct, this debate is about Trevor Marshall's purported notability as a scientist, and since the public is not generally capable of truly judging the scientific merit of a given paper, (the crux of WP:NOR policy I assume) the job of judging science must fall to other scientists, in the form of peer review. Admittedly, this process is not perfect, but in this forum we must accept the peer's judgements of scientific merit.
I would also like to note that another important factor in determining the notability of a scientist is the number of times that other scientists have cited their articles. This is usually a good indication of how important and useful the published paper is to the understanding and work of other authors in the same field. According to Google Scholar (which I refer to as it gives a more accurate "cited by" record) Trevor Marshall's most recent papers have each been cited by fewer than 10 other scientists. This indicates that a paper is of extremely low impact, especially as these papers have been available for over two years. As a comparison, for non-scientists, I offer the record of a truly notable researcher (I pick this scientist because I am familiar with her record, but many notable scientists have similar citation records). Please note the "cited by" numbers here:
  • Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID: 15246025 Cited by 3 other scientists (it says 8 but 5 of these are by Marshall himself). and Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID: 16403216 Cited by 1
  • P. Marrack, et. al. 2004... Cited by 207 (other papers), cited by 196, cited by 153, ect...) Additionally PubMed lists 299 peer-reviewed articles for this scientist, versus Trevor Marshall's 2 or 3 peer-reviewed articles).
When viewed in this light I think that the non-notability of a scientist such as Trevor Marshall becomes quite obvious.--DO11.10 05:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sarabrate. People are being far too picky. Clean up the article by all means, but as Wikipedia is not paper, give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him here - he's obviously done some significant and important research. And I reject suggestions that non-scientists should be excluded from the debate, or forced to accept conclusions by earlier editors. JROBBO 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I am not Dr. Marshall, nor am I sarabrate. Yes, I am "knowledgeable" about Dr. Marshall and his work, and there are thousands like me. Dr. Marshall is conducting trials with the FDA, lecturing at universities around the world, and collaborating with hundreds of doctors, including mine. He's clearly notable. Sazevedo 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - because fundamentally if you can garner that many references and write/debate that much the guy is notable - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 24 December 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.