Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Allan Feldman

Add links
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 delete and redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Those requesting the retention of this article have failed to produce convincing, policy-backed arguments; unlike those requesting deletion, who have shown that there is limited coverage of this individual outside of primary sources. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Allan Feldman

[edit]
Marc Allan Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual does not appear to meet minimum notability requirements. -- ALPolitico (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: this page is about me, so I am biased. I am concerned that the consideration for deletion appears to be made by the same person who I asked to include me back in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ALPolitico&direction=next&oldid=651084954 It would seem more objective if the consideration for deletion was made by a different editor. The article is sourced with a number of independent secondary sources and should meet objective criteria for notability. I hope this decision is reviewed. Mfeldmanmd (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your vantage point as the article's subject, this concern is understandable. However, I can see no clear indication of a bias against you on the part of the nominator. The mere fact that you previously contacted this person does not constitute a lack of objectivity on his/her part. Look at it from another angle: if a different editor - which you had no previous contact with - had nominated the page for deletion, and ALPolitico had instead argued in favor of keeping the page, would you have asked that his/her comments be disregarded for the same reason you expressed above concerning objectivity? My guess is likely not. Besides, the motive of the nominator is not as important as the strength of the arguments put forward (by other participants as well as the nominator) concerning the notability - or lack thereof- of the subject, based on WP policies and guidelines.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who made this page, I'm confused on why it is up for deletion. This article is well constructed, has many scholarly and secondary sources, and looks a lot better than many other pages on Wikipedia about people running for president in this cycle such as Willie Wilson, David Mills, Darryl Cherney or Austin Petersen.I would like a clear answer on why these pages who have less sources, which are not scholarly or secondary are allowed, but not Dr. Feldman. He should be in the same light as them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody9311 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (referenced below by an IP): ".... just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." Indeed, several of the articles you referenced do seem to be short on adequate sourcing (note that the Petersen article is tagged for inadequate sourcing, among other issues). I will take a look at those articles within the next few days, and see if more substantial sourcing can be found for them. If not, I will consider them nominating them for deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF not a reason to keep, but rather delete the stubs "with barely two references". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.47.4.27 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the delusion that nobody looked at the references at all. Trust me: we all did, and very few of them are reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL and notability guidelines as spelled out in WP:42. Quoting from the former: : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." So, considering that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, that leaves us with the following questions:
a) is the subject notable aside from being a political candidate? If the answer is no, then:
b) does the coverage of the subject's campaign/candidacy go far beyond mere WP:RECENTISM and the routine, run-of-the-mill campaign coverage that nearly all candidates (even generally unknown "citizen-politicians", minor-party candidates, and so-called "fringe candidates") receive? More elaborately, has the campaign received significant coverage in multiple national/major media sources (think Vermin Supreme or Alvin Greene), and not just in local press, blogs, niche publications?
My answer to (a) is no. Quoting from WP:42: "We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it." AFAICT, all of the non-campaign related sources in the article are either directory listings or make only passing mention of the subject.
My answer to (b) is also no. Again quoting from WP:42 (emphasis added by me): "We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization." Looking over the campaign-related sources, it seems that more than half are written or created by the subject (e.g. his own commentaries published in The Times of Isreal, self-made YouTube videos). The others consist of local press (Cleveland-based publications, the subject is an Ohio resident), non-notable blogs (Irregular Times), and niche publications (Modern Healthcare is a trade publication of the subject's profession), and a directory listing. Thus, I agree with the nominator the subject fails to meet the minimum notability requirements.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Ddcm8991 nailed it. The small handful of articles reporting on his current third-party presidential campaign are not enough to establish notability under wp:politician, and the other sources don't provide the significant coverage needed to pass the general notability threshold.--Newbreeder (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As things stand right now, the sourcing here is far too dependent on unreliable and non-independent sources (e.g. YouTube videos, blogs, primary source public relations profiles on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, and content where he's the author and not the subject of the cited reference), which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. A candidate in a party primary is not entitled to a Wikipedia article on that basis itself, but rather gets a Wikipedia article only if they were already eligible for one before running in the primary — but nothing that's been written or sourced here demonstrates that he had any preexisting notability at all. Given that this is the presidential primary, it's possible that merely winning the nomination could be enough notability to get him over the bar — for most offices it isn't, but most offices don't generate even a fraction of 0.0000001 per cent as much media coverage as the presidential race gets. And even if that does happen, it still doesn't confer an automatic inclusion freebie — if the reliable source coverage still doesn't take a big jump afterward, then he still won't get to keep an article that's sourced like this. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins the party's nomination and the coverage of him increases accordingly — but until that happens, he doesn't get to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is clearly established in the article. Curro2 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based almost entirely on primary sources. How is it "clearly establishing" notability at all? Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few-paragraph mention on NPR, but I'm not seeing anything in reliable independent secondary sources which is more substantive. On that basis, I'm going with delete until/unless he does something which gets sufficient coverage. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect. The article's edit history could remain so the page could be restored without needing a starting-from-scratch restoration if the subject gains enough independent RS coverage in the future to attain clear-consensus notability. Such a redirect would be within the guidelines of WP:NPOL.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Bearcat and WP:10YT. As a creator and editor of several different articles about minor-party and lesser-known candidates, I would really like to say "keep". However, after a closer look at of the sources provided (and a search for others), I have to conclude that the assessments of the delete !voters are correct. The vast majority of the sources are either: primary; provide no significant coverage of the subject, only a mention or passing reference; are written or created by the subject, rather than independent coverage about the subject; or are non-RS (e.g. the blog Irregular Times). That leaves us with only a modicum of mainly local coverage about his current campaign, and these fall under WP:RECENTISM. It has already pointed that just an being an unelected candidate is not enough - in and of itself - to achieve notability under WP:NPOL. In the event that he actually wins the Libertarian nomination for president, the article should be recreated as he will then be the nominee of a notable party on the ballot in enough states to have at least a mathematical possibility of winning the election. For the time being though, sorry to say, he's just not notable.--Cojovo (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: The article is about me. Although I am best known on the Internet for politics, in the real world I may be considered notable for my academic career. This may change the criteria for notability under WP:ACADEMIC, I am established as one of the foremost anesthesiologists for eye surgery in the U.S. and I am known internationally. I was a faculty member at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Clinical Director of Anesthesiology at the Wilmer Eye Institute from 1989 to 1998. During this time, I was the lead anesthesiologist and Site Principal Investigator for the Study of Medical Testing for Cataract Surgery, one of the largest prospective clinical trials ever performed, where 19,000 cataract patients were randomized to receive EKG and blood tests or no EKG and blood tests prior to cataract surgery. The results were published in the New England Journal and became a highly cited paper. The results of this study led to a national change in practice. I have also authored the chapter on Anesthesia for Eye Surgery in the authoritative textbook Miller's anesthesia for the past three additions. I have been elected three times to as President of the national Ophthalmic Anesthesia Society, and I have been invited to conduct workshops on anesthesia for the eye at the American Society of Anesthesiologists meeting five times. However, whether the entire field of ophthalmic anesthesiology is considered academically notable is a question.Mfeldmanmd (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description you provide here of your career can be characterized as the career of a highly successful physician. Being a successful and highly regarded clinician does not qualify as notability for Wikipedia purposes. As for the New England Journal article, it does not sound as though you were first author, but in all events, a single clinical trial - even one published in the New England Journal - would not pass WP:PROFESSOR, unless it was a hell of an article. Notability for an academic generally requires a body of significant published work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mfeldmanmd: Hypothetically, if it were agreed that requirements for WP:NACADEMICS were met with reliable sources, there's still the problem that your nascent political career is as yet non-notable. To avoid WP:COATRACK and other issues of weight, I believe that such an article would need to focus on your career as a opthalmic anaesthetist, the topic of notability. One sentence about your columns and another for your presidential candidacy might be ok, for instance, but much more wouldn't be. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 09:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hydronium Hydroxide. The Delete !voters have made compelling policy-based arguments that the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG (or other relevant notability guidelines), as opposed to the Keep !voters who have offered only unsubstantiated assertions ("he seems to be" or "is clearly" notable) or arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:CRYSTAL (..."seems like he'll be in politics for some 15 more years") type. That being the case, I cannot support keeping the article at this time. However, WP:GNG states "If a topic does not meet these criteria [for establishing notability] but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article" Given that there are verifiable facts and that the subject is already included in the Libertarian primaries article, redirecting to that page would be a fair and sensible move.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the quotes you picked were from me. Not everything is a proper argument to be picked apart and wikilawyered. Where as you say Delete voters have made compelling arguments — by stating all of the sources are primary. For the record, any analysis of him is a secondary source: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marc_Allan_Feldman&oldid=1078518536"