Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Alan Ditsworth

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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Alan Ditsworth

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODed with reason "Drummed-up biography, with some name-dropping, but no indication that this meets WP:ACADEMIC." Article dePRODed without reason given by editor since blocked as a troll. Claims in article not substantiated. I don't have access to every reference given, but those that I could check don't even mention Ditsworth (ref. 1, 7, 9, 11, 13. 14-16 are by Ditsworth himself). Google and GScholar searches did not render anything else. Ref 2 seems to be the only substantial source, but reads like an advertorial to me. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am seeing a lot of sourcing, whilst this means he may not pass academic it seems to enable to pass general Notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you tell us which part of the sourcing is substantial? Those that I can access don't even mention the subject, others are articles that he published himself, which doesn't help establishing notability either. That the article was reference bombed does not make it meet our criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem for me, there are a lot of sources I cannot access. So I am seeing some vert limited coverage from the sources I can access and (what about half) I cannot. Thus there maybe some notability here. I can neither confirm it or conform a lack of it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed unfortunate that there are sources that we cannot access. However, the fact that among the sources that we can acess only one actually mentions Ditsworth (apart, of course, from those that he published himself) does not make me very confident that the inaccessible sources are any different. Pinging Doc James, who perhaps has access to the other sources. As an aside, much is made in the article of the fact that Ditsworth is cited by Gun Choi (whose biography was created by the same person who created this one), "president "in fact, secretary general) of the grandiose sounding "World Congress of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Techniques", which, in fact, gas just 51 members... --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To avoud confusion: the numbers of sources mentioned above refer to this version of the article, which has been edited since. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. He publishes under "D A Ditsworth" but GS gives only one paper with 129 cites. Not enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is a similar article to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaki_Watanabe except instead of the knee, according to multiple reliable sources, Ditsworth pioneered spinal transforaminal endoscopy. CAskywriter (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't other research papers cite his work? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

ANd WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strgon argument. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of concerns. Using primary sources. This link https://www.beckersspine.com/spine/item/13221-15-spine-surgeons--specialists-pioneering-surgical-technique is from "ASC COMMUNICATIONS" not a reputable publisher put a PR firm it appears. Not seeing major coverage / evidence of notability. This is also not a reliable source https://musculoskeletalkey.com/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact remains that multiple experts in the highly specialized field of endoscopic spine surgery, writing from different parts of the world and in different years, have stated that Ditsworth "opened the era" of transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery and therefore influenced all work that followed.CAskywriter (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the concerns mentioned above have been addressed.CAskywriter (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the expanded endoscopic work of Ditsworth, since 1998, is described, with additional references.CAskywriter (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear that Ditsworth is a pioneer in endoscopic spine surgery, according to good secondary sources, like Baylor.Hermesonolympus (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Baylor" is not a source. Ditsworth is cited by someone from Baylor. Any scientist worth her/his mettle gets thousands of citations, so that's not really anything special. BTW, given your edit history, I'm more thn surprised to see you here... --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is fundamentally promotional and needs to be removed from mainspace promptly. It would need a fundamental rewrite even if the person were to meet PROF. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Jytdog entirely. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of Delete in Bold, perhaps there should be be a Re-write option that is equally offered in Bold instead, especially in cases that have been relisted.CAskywriter (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need a "rewrite in bold". We don't care about writing here at AfD. What we care about is sourcing. All you need is a few good sources that actually confirm what the article claims (instead of just in-passing mentions that you'd like to interpret what you want it to mean) and we're done here. If no good sources are found, this will be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Randykitty, Thank you for your advice and for the opportunity to clarify my sources.CAskywriter (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article sources have been gleaned down to those readily findable through GS. Except, for some reason, only Ch. 61 of the second edition book edited by Anderson and Vaccaro, professors at Jefferson, is listed on GS, not Ch. 63, which was in the first edition.CAskywriter (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jytdog. This looks like unencyclopedic WP:PROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's often missed is that the criteria for notability isn't what the subject writes but what reliable sources write about the subject. Ifnord (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.