Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Gabbe
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 Keep (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Steven Gabbe
Just another academic bureaucrat, failing all of the criteria for WP:PROF. Creator of article has a very aggressive and nasty history of edit warring to remove the notability tags from the article, so let's watch out particularly for any disruptive behavior on the AfD. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- No "nastiness" was intended. I am just someone new to creating wiki articles. My apparent "edit warring" was just lack of experience (removing tags when I thought an issue had been addressed). It took me this long just to figure out how to be part of the discussion! In any case, to the issue: Steven Gabbe is more than a "bureaucrat". He is the Dean of one of the nation's top medical schools, and is a prominent academic and author in his field (obstetrics and gynecology). One of the six notability factors in the link referred to by qworty is a significant and well-known collective body of work (see link). As noted below, he satisfies more than just this one factor.Nafeh9 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, he's an elected member of the Institute of Medicine, part of the United States National Academy of Sciences.[1] Surely that meets WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per context Dhartung mentions. Just check out this Link. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it's fair to accuse this editor of edit-warring; I see them removing the notability tag exactly once, and that was after the addition of some information. I'll also point out the goofiness of an admin declining an A7 speedy saying that it asserts notability ([2]) and then tagging it with a notability tag three hours later ([3]) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't get what's goofy about it. An article may assert notability, thus escaping WP:CSD#A7), but still fail to prove said notability (e.g. in cases where no inherent notability can be established, through references to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources), which is what the {{notability}} tag requests. Then even if those sources are added, an article might still contain a bunch of unreferenced facts, so it gets a {{refimprove}} tag. And even if all the facts are referenced, there might be synthesis, so it gets a {{original research}} tag. And so forth. cab (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean here, and that is one of the things that's been improved with this article since the speedy. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't get what's goofy about it. An article may assert notability, thus escaping WP:CSD#A7), but still fail to prove said notability (e.g. in cases where no inherent notability can be established, through references to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources), which is what the {{notability}} tag requests. Then even if those sources are added, an article might still contain a bunch of unreferenced facts, so it gets a {{refimprove}} tag. And even if all the facts are referenced, there might be synthesis, so it gets a {{original research}} tag. And so forth. cab (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As Dhartung says, being an elected member of the Institute of Medicine is by itself sufficient to prove notability per WP:PROF. A GoogleScholar search also returns fairly impressive results[4], with top citations of 228 and 135. In my opinion clearly satisfies WP:PROF and should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Medline finds 178 publications for "Gabbe SG"[Author], including many in high-impact general medical journals such as NEJM, JAMA & Lancet, as well as high-quality specialist journals such as Obstet Gynecol; these include several invited reviews. Gabbe is first author on a textbook in 5th edition which has been cited 228 times according to Google Scholar, which also finds one article cited 135 times, and a further eight cited over 50 times. (His citations might well be underestimated by Google Scholar as many will be pre-internet.) As well as being dean of a medical school and former research chair, the subject has held several positions in national academic societies and research committees, and is an NAS Institute of Medicine fellow. Clearly meets several criteria of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Institute of Medicine by itself, as a branch of US National Academies, is a sufficient criterion of notability. True, we have articles on very few of the members. We should, rather than those MDs who get local publicity for their plastic surgery practices and the like. DGG (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
