Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Anna Frisch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:35, 1 August 2014

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

No evidence of notability. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF, many MDs have listed professorships due to residency programs. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails to support claim of "World Renown" (sic). No independent sources. Just a promotional bio; for me, this is borderline WP:G11. – Wdchk (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Info" I am not sure if i am adding this in the correct area. We are still currently updating the page for Dr Anna Frisch to reflect her elite status in the field of Endocrinology. --Xmxpro1 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to contribute to the discussion here. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A list of scholarly articles written by the article's subject does not, in itself, provide enough information to determine the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotionally-written article with its main editor, Xmxpro1, reverting any attempt to make it less promotional. From the citation record, the subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF. The only nontrivial source given is a local story about a medical patient who happens to have been treated by Frisch; there is no nontrivial coverage in it of Frisch herself, so no reason to believe she passes WP:GNG independently of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest anything else than an actively practicing clinician with a research interest. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No proof for the claimed super status. MDs are not inherently notable. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
- I also haven't edited the article. Plus, I have no interest in this person. And I have edits outside of this deletion discussion (now). Please drop your SPA charge. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do not believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Keep''' - [[WP:DIDEROT]] [[User:Jim-Siduri|Jim-Siduri]] ([[User talk:Jim-Siduri|talk]]) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 :::Your reasons? [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
+*'''Keep''' Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do ''not'' believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])</small>''' 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)