Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Glynn Bolitho, MD

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. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Glynn Bolitho, MD

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

Fairly obvious Resume/advertisement. {{Prod blp}} template removed by an administrator (as "inappropriate"). Appears to have published some papers, per primary/self-published source[1] -- no other evidence of notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant criterion is WP:PROF, and what is necessary is to show him an authority in his specialty. Since this is usually done by published papers and the citations to them, the bibliographic listing was a sufficient source to defeat WP:BLPPROD. (& I have now added a 3rd party source for this phd thesis) In this case, Scopus shows 8 publications, with the highest citation counts 17, 16, 15, and h = 4. Is this enough to show him notable as a hand surgeon? I doubt it, especially because his "book" seems to have been a review guide for a residency exams & is not in WorldCat; had it been a substantial textbook, it would have been different. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill plastic surgeon with minimal publication history, no academic affiliation, and no presence on the web except for his own website and review sites. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly discusses him in the context of his profession (not notable per se) rather than any notbale achievements he made within that profession. WoS shows about the same results as scopus for research: 7 papers, h-index 4, <50 total citations, so that won't fly. For your reference: article created by WP:SPA Hammink, so this may just be a vanity or a fan page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable by WP:PROF, not clear what other standard it might meet Vartanza (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (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.