Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Atkinson (surgeon)

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Atkinson (surgeon)

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

Questionable noteability created for an election candidate prior to an election along with Bill Denny (officer). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems to be a sufficient amount of sources to establish notability. Creation before an election I don't find too much of a coincidence. Should Barack Obama not have had an article prior to the 2008 election, would its creation be questioned? Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sources and noteability are different. Barack Obama was a Senator prior to being elected President and always have more than enough noteability prior to being President. Timeshift (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candiates for offices at the level he is a candidate are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And his candidacy is irrelevant to his notability, which is otherwise established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has a relatively minor claim to notability seperate to being an election candidate, and stands zero chance of election so isn't notable for that either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the candidature is non-notable soap, so I edited that section out. Provided it stays that way, I have no problem about a distinguished member of the Order of Australia being listed in Wikipedia. Incidentally, I don't live in South Australia and have no interest of any kind in the outcome of any election there. Bjenks (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brigadier, he meets WP:SOLDIER, a standard for inclusion of military biographies which, while not actually a guideline, is widely accepted within the military history editing community on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Brigadier generals are, by consensus, considered to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as a soldier as above, and also it seems as an author, although only to a marginal extent. Orderinchaos 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER (although it would be nice if somewhere on that page there could be a quick run-down of the ranks that qualify under #3). The article as it stands is in fairly good shape too. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is obvious in several fields; e.g. AM citation: For service to medicine as an orthopaedic surgeon and through contributions to professional associations. If candidature causes people to write good quality bios for Wikipedia, then I wish there was more of it! Pdfpdf (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2014 (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.