Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Dafoe
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 Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald Dafoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, because the chair he holds is not at a major institution. Appears to be more a case of notability due to relationship with actor Willem Dafoe, which is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as clearly meeting WP:N. Verified in the article: "He has written over 160 peer-reviewed articles and he has been on the editorial board of Journal of Surgical Research, The Chimera, and Transplantation Science." I find WP:ACADEMIC a good fit here and he easily qualifies on criteria 1, 5 (see [1]: "Transplant surgeon Donald C. Dafoe, MD, FACS, has been named the Samuel D. Gross Professor and Chairman of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College", 2000), and 6 at least. I disagree with the nominators characterization of Cedars-Sinai as not being a "major institution". For WP:CREATIVE (which includes scientists), 1, 3, and of course 5 are met in my opinion. The man has held two separate named chairs--this should be closed as a Speedy Keep under WP:ACADEMIC #5. JJL (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Cedars-Sinai is a hospital, not an academic institution; one cannot get a degree from Cedars-Sinai, so that does not qualify under ACADEMIC. Is Jefferson Medical College a major medical school? Also, research volume is not the key here, but impact, and if you choose, as article creator, not to cite any of his major work that would qualify him, it's not up to anyone else to go and add that material in there.MSJapan (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reliable source for that contention (that it's not an academic institution)? In contrast to your claim, in 2012 Cedars-Sinai received US$27.4 million in funding from the NIH, almost US$700,000 for training. -- Scray (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Training has nothing to do with academics. Cedars-Sinai does not confer degrees, and worker training programs do not make a workplace an academic institution. Our own article on academic institution indicates "An academic institution is an educational institution dedicated to education and research, which grants academic degrees." MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An institution with doctoral and post-doctoral programmes is academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Training has nothing to do with academics. Cedars-Sinai does not confer degrees, and worker training programs do not make a workplace an academic institution. Our own article on academic institution indicates "An academic institution is an educational institution dedicated to education and research, which grants academic degrees." MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reliable source for that contention (that it's not an academic institution)? In contrast to your claim, in 2012 Cedars-Sinai received US$27.4 million in funding from the NIH, almost US$700,000 for training. -- Scray (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ACADEMIC considering position at major (yes, C-S is arguably major) institution. I have some doubt about claim of "160" peer-reviewed publications: no reliable source for this number is provided, and a search of Pubmed using "dafoe dc" or even the less-specific "dafoe d" yields less than 150. That said, it's clear that this academic is notable. -- Scray (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GS h-index around 30 gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Even if it does not pass WP:ACADEMIC on technical grounds... I would say that a head of department at a prestigious medical research institution should be considered Notable. Perhaps we need a new notability guideline (WP:MEDICINE?... WP:DOCTOR?) Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had similar thoughts--it might suffice to split a WP:SCIENTIST out from WP:CREATIVE--but in the case at hand I think that WP:ACADEMIC fits just fine. JJL (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that WP:ACADEMIC fits this case just fine. WP:ACADEMIC specifically includes scientists and scholars who work outside academia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2012 (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.