Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

< 2009 August 29	Deletion review archives: 2009 August	2009 August 31 >

[edit] 30 August 2009

Melissa Palmer, M.D. – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This gastroenterologist is widely known throughout the US. She is a published author, whose books have been the NY Times best seller list in multiple years, having sold more than 20K copies in a year (the chief requirement to get on the best-seller list).
The article provides numerous citations from renown medical journals academic publications.
The subject is clearly notable. I mean, there is no gray area here. She has been cited by many other Wikipedia authors, all of whom are independent of the subject.
Furthermore, on the second AfD debate, the writer made every attempt to follow the editorial consensus is revising/wikifying the article, and it was still deleted.

Efactor1975 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the deleting admin? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried that first. S/he told me to go here - without any further discussion. Efactor1975 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  - You sure? I don't see it in your contribs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    - No, you didn't. You contact Tnxman, who was not the closer of the most recent AfD, and were told to go to DRV by a completely different user. Furthermore, your first edit was to try and reverse the result with an AfD, so I would like to know what has captured your interest with Ms Palmer. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      - Likely another one in a long army of single-purpose accounts. MuZemike 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have sourcing saying that this individual was on the best seller list? I don't see much about her on this search of the NYT website. If she is an NYT best seller that would likely be a claim of notability. But I can't find any sources that seem to say she was an NYT best seller and I'd be highly skeptical of that claim given the moderate Amazon sales ranks. (Incidentally, being cited by Wikipedia articles really doesn't make one notable. Heck, I'm cited in Wikipedia articles). Finally note that if we do decide to overturn this deletion the article should be at Melissa Palmer since there is no other individual of that name who has an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Question: In my non-admin-ness, I can't see enough about this to make sense of it. Is the version speedily deleted on 29 August substantially identical to the version discussed at the AfD?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there was a small (about 5%-10%) expansion. I am personally concerned with the amount of single-purpose accounts surrounding this article, but that shouldn't preclude the article from being kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Question I too ask what is the evidence for NYTimes best seller status? If there is none, it leads me to question some of the other assertions here. As I understand it, the NYT Best seller list is a ranked list, not a list of books selling more than a certain fixed number of copies, so I am not sure where the 20,000 figure comes from. --as it is a list prepared weekly, i do not see how the annual sales would in any case be relevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep deleted, nothing here besides rearguing the same rejected arguments about why the article should not be deleted. I would be tempted to list on WP:DEEPER if it shows up again. Per JoshuaZ, if this does end in an overturn, the article should be at Melissa Palmer, per WP:NCP. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Overturn and relist- in my view the closing admin was in error. There was not a clear case for deletion and it should have been closed as 'no consensus'. For fellow non-admins the article can be found at User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer. Having read the various comments, I think that there are enough issues that merit further discussion so I am not proposing a straight overturn. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Endorse – proper determination of a rough consensus by closing admin, less the commentary by the single-purpose accounts. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak Endorse Based on Material Factual Issue While I think that the discussion did end with a consensus to keep, it appears that the claim that Dr. Palmer's works have appeared on the New York Times Best-Seller lists appears to have been a major factor for retention. I have the same concerns as DGG, and my searches don't find anything to support the claim. This appears to be a material defect in the article and the deletion discussion that needs to be remedied one way or the other. I will reconsider once reliable sources support the NYT best seller claim. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse When you exclude the sock puppetry, consensus is clearly to delete Corpx (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Addendum. I don't understand why you folks spend so much time looking at who did what, and who this one is and who that one is. All that should matter is: Is Dr. Palmer notable by virtue of Wikipedia standards? It seems you guys spend a lot of time arguing about things that aren't germane to that issue. And it seems to me - from WP:Notability - that she clearly is, regardless of the NYTimes best-seller claim. Ok. Throw that claim out. She still meets the criteria set forth in the notability guidelines. Who wrote the article, why I'm interested, etc., doesn't really matter all that much. It seesm like you folks are quick to penalize someone for not following all the "rules" (let alone the fact that "the rules" are not all in one place, are not easy to find, and are abstruse as hell when you do find them). You just want to penalize, to your own detriment, because what does it hurt to have an article about Melissa Palmer, so long as the info is true? How does that hurt Wikipedia? It's like, you folks want to cut off your noses to spite your faces? I don't get it. And there are so many lesser known doctors in here that have had articles for years, I mean, I just don't get it. Efactor1975 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Relist per bridgeplayer. I don't particularly see a clear rough consensus here, especially since the deletion arguments in the debate were so weak. Anthony Appleyard doesn't even make one. Reading like an ad is fixable if the topic is appropriate, and Paul MacDonald makes the nonsensical claim that while the subject may be notable, the article is not. Counting all the SPAs as a single account, the count is 4-2 in favor of deletion with one "neutral" that is clearly not convinced by the deletion arguments. This should be a no consensus, except that all the SPAs muddled things. The issues need proper consideration and that means a new debate. Mango juice^talk 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Overturn and relist - I just don't seen the consensus to delete this one in the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion With the puppets removed, there was a clear consensus to delete and thus nothing was out of process in the closing admin's decision here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect Judgment of Sockpuppetry. From my understanding, a sockpuppet is either
  1. A single person using multiple accounts, or
  2. Multiple persons using the same account
- Several different people, all first-time voters/editors, who happen to be colleagues of the subject and who wish for the article to be kept, is not sockpuppetry - even if those persons only created an account for the sole purpose of voting in the AfD. There is no rule that states this is sockpuppetry. I think the bias against single-user accounts or accounts with little or no edit history goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Efactor1975 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- So it's meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. So what? Either is against policy. Besides, it's hard to tell if it's sockpuppet or meatpuppet without a checkuser. And it doesn't matter, anyway. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  - - Wow. I never heard of meatpuppetry before. Damn! You guys got a rule for every thing. I guess ... I stand corrected. I suppose we could be rightly charged with meatpuppetry. (Who comes up with these terms, anyways??? :) Efactor1975 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    - addendum. Now I get your logic:
      1. Meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry inserts bias into the article.
      2. Bias violates WP:NPOV.
      3. An article that violates NPOV should be deleted
    - Q.E.D. Dr. Palmer's article - regardless of whether she's notable - should be deleted.
      Do I have that right? Efactor1975 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Actually, "meatpuppet" has also been Internet jargon used before Wikipedia. MuZemike 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- All of these protests have caused me to check. I've discovered that Efactor1975 is operated by the same sockpuppetteer who operated Voros1975, one of the several sockpuppets in the second AFD discussion. I've blocked the account. This sockpuppetteer is restricted to one account: the one that xe created during the AFD discussion, and which is currently unblocked. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a very good argument for deletion made in the first AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer (doctor), that is being overlooked here and that has not been refuted anywhere, here or in the second AFD discussion. Here it is. This rationale has a rock solid foundation in deletion policy: Efforts to find reliable sources to substantiate any of the claims made about this subject have failed. Note further that the claims were taken, in that first AFD discussion, from a copy of this person's autobiographical publicity blurb that had been copied and pasted into Wikipedia. That self-same publicity blurb is being cited as a source, and is the only source saying anything about this subject, several times over (via multiple copies on multiple WWW sites) in User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer.
DGG and Alansohn are simply re-stating concerns for specific items that were stated for the entire subject in the first AFD discussion. Deletion policy was properly applied here. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse. Whether or not the closer took into account the arguments at the previous AfD, it was not clear error to close as delete. Tim Song (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - sound reasoning, proper ignoring of invalid arguments and meat/sockpuppets. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Endorse deletion The evidence for puppetry is clear, and such !votes do not enter into consensus. On the basis of that evidence, I think there's reason to close this early. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and those keeping score will know that DGG and I rarely do. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_30&oldid=312175226"

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30

[edit] 30 August 2009

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export