Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Laffel

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. No other arguments for deletion besides the nom, and the arguments for retention seem to outweigh the reasons for deletion given. –MuZemike 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Laffel

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

Non-notable physician. The closest notability guideline I could find is Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which this individual fails. While the article has a decent quantity of references, most of the references are primary and don't establish notability. Some of the references are to papers that this person wrote and some of the references mention him trivially or don't mention him at all. Article was created by a SPA-like editor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. SnottyWong ^chat 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep He is the senior author or sole author on a lot of important papers at PubMed - some of them cited more than 100 times by others. His current position isn't one that would make him notable, but I think he qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. He gets some hits at Google News, but they are mostly quotes from him rather than stuff ABOUT him; this is not unusual for physicians and scientists, who almost never attract the kind of significant coverage normally required by WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Most widely cited pub, in JAMA, has 1,464 cites in GS; but he is one of many authors, right in the middle of the list. Two other pubs have more than 300 and 100 cites; he is first author in them. The h-index is a low 7, suggesting just a few hit wonders.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2010 (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.