Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Abbott

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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Abbott

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

Non notable surgeon. The subject was a doctor, but not medical research achievements/techniques are disclosed. Simply being a lecturer is not enough and every qualified doctor becomes a 'fellow'. Secondly, while he was a state-level head of a medical association, being a leader of a state branch of a union is not sufficient for notability. Finally, while he was the head of a historical society, he was not a trained historian, checking the page of that society shows that in the old days, many of people in the historical society were doctors/politicians etc who did history as a hobby. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel like it just gets over the line, though yet another fake ADB citation in the article is a pretty bad look. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Conversely, I feel like he just falls short. The SMH obit is OK but I can't find much else. Frickeg (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that he's just over the line. Heading the Royal Australian Historical Society is the tipper for me -- even if only honorary, people thought him prominent enough to be so honored Lombard10001 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial coverage in reliable ondependent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: President of the Australasian Medical Congress, and President of the Royal Australian Historical Society, together provide sufficient notability. SunChaser (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (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.