Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Realyvasquez

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 redirect to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) . Content is available under the redirect should anyone find it worth merging. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Realyvasquez

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

Negative sourced BLP. Normally, I delete attack pages on sight, But it is sourced by NYTiimes. The key to WP:CSD#G10 being "that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." I'd like more eyes so I don't delete an article that turns out to be keepable through terms of significant coverage, though I've little doubt it will be SNOWED. Thanks Dloh cierekim 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 10 sources, including NYTimes and a book was written about him. Dloh cierekim 14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep?~~ Delete: Book here, Press release from US Attorney McGregor W. Scott, Eastern District of California here, we have a number of NY Times articles sourced in the article (plus [1]), LA Times article [2], court case details [3]. Providing it sticks to the facts as sourced (that there was a case brought, there was a settlement, etc), I'm not really sure I understand the rationale for deleting it -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean aside from being wholly negative and only being notable for one event? :). I should have stated that more explicitly. See THF below for more. But then, I brought it here for a full sounding of the issues, so it will be interesting to see how the discussion turns. (Actually, all those Keep reasons are why I thought there should be discussion.) Well said.) Dloh cierekim 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think being wholly negative alone is a sufficient delete reason, as long as the negativity is accurate and sourced. The "single event" thing might be important, but is it the single legal case, or the multiple medical cases that determine the number of events? (But I have changed my stance from "Keep" to "Keep?" :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there might be some nuanced discussion. <grin /> Dloh cierekim 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion partly based on WP:BLP1E - though the alleged wrongdoings were repeated over a number of years, it's effectively just a single notable issue. And partly because it is already covered by Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California), and that is the obvious place for it rather than individual articles about the two doctors involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EFFECT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Info already in two places in Tenet Healthcare and related hospital article, so no loss to encyclopedia. NB that article created by WP:SPA whose edits are almost entirely about this case and creating articles about this case, so there are likely WP:COI issues. If the Coronary book is notable, create an article about that book, though it's far from clear that it is, given that the 2007 book has 0 GNews hits and has already been remaindered. THF (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might go with WP:BLP1E, but see comment above. Not sure the relevance of WP:EFFECT. Don't think WP:SPA is a good enough deletion on its own. And if you do the book search with the correct title ("Coronary: A True Story", not "Coronary true story"), you get a handful of GNews hits - [4]. The duplication of the information in the Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) article seems to be the strongest reason for deletion so far - lets see what others think, and I might change my opinion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Coronary is a common word. Therefore, I did a search of Coronary: A True Story, Coronary True Story, Coronary A True Story and it came up with 75,300 hits on google.com. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Coronary+True+Story&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Comment. Per WP:MULTI and basic issues of common-sense consistency and efficiency, it might make sense for someone ambitious to combine this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hyun Moon‎, which is essentially an identical article to this one with identical issues in the deletion discussion. The fact that these two BLPs produce almost identical articles once they're sourced demonstrates exactly why we don't need duplication with the Redding hospital article. THF (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any salient, sourced information to Shasta Regional Medical Center (Redding, California) and leave this as a redirect. Looking back through the page history I don't agree that the article was overly negative, thats the nature of the BLP1E game when the one event is a bad one. However, one event is one event, so redirect this guy and his cohort to the medical centre's article, where the subject can be covered in more depth if necessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to a merge/redirect. THF (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; I do not think ONEEVENT applies here, because it was first of all a continuing series of actions and investigations, and second a major matter of public interest. But it would be better to keep the material together. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - The article's historical version is well-referenced and notable. It is perhaps too redundant to have different articles each "doctor", but don't lose this work, and maintain the name as a redirect. The claim that a "new editor who has only edited on one topic" has a conflict of interest is ridiculous - of course a new editor has edited one topic first. Besides, if it is someone who has had an unnecessary heart surgery, I don't call that a conflict of interest but just someone knowledgeable about the topic who deserves our consideration! A conflict of interest is when you're getting paid (one way or another) to push your POV, not simply when you have a strong opinion, even if it is well justified. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 12 March 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.