Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Kirksey

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kirksey

This article was prodded with stated reason: "non-notable surgeon. Only 6 articles in PubMed and contributor to 1 book. Misses WP:ACADEMIC". The (expired) prod was removed with by an editor who gave as edit summary "deprod, undisputed valid claim of notability". While the presence of a claim for notability is a good motivation to refuse a speedy deletion, it is a rather meager reason to remove an expired prod. Earlier I cleaned up the article, but I don't find sufficient sources to establish notability. Six articles and a contribution to 1 book are not really sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF. His charity activities do not seem to have generated interest from independent verifiable sources establishing notability under WP:BIO either: just 58 Ghits for "Lee Kirksey", not all of this concerning the subject of this article (but "Arthur Lee Kirksey") and including WP itself. Hence, I am proposing this article for deletion. Crusio (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ACADEMIC and per nominator. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete no notability, probably written by someone with a WP:COI in my humble opinion. Sticky Parkin 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere. Absoutely no evidence of COI.The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the? Lol! I am an established editor who is contributing to AfDs, like I always do when I feel like it, I've contributed to several in the last couple of days, based on what is up at AfD that I feel like contributing to and nothing else. I can assure you, I've never even noticed you around before yesterday. Your comment is a gross violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Sticky Parkin 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF, per nom. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery" is an undisputed valid claim to notability. The nomnator's inability to find online sources in a de minimus search is not a valid justification for deletion, under the applicable terms of the deletion policy. The nominator, rather than contacting the new user who wrote the article and offering help, slammed deletion tags on the article and posted boilerplate on the talk page. That's WP:BITE territory. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?? Minimus search?? Slamming deletion tags?? Please take a second to look through the history of this article. I extensively edited it to try to make an acceptable article out of it. While I did so, I checked the references given (mostly the subject's own promotional websites) and searched for other references. Being the "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery" is indeed a claim to notability, so a speedy deletion would have been unjustified on those grounds alone. Whether it is a claim that would satisfy any criterion of WP:N or WP:BIO is open for debate (as the following !vote -with whom I was in edit conflict- shows). In any case, except for the subject's own sites, I have not found any reliable, verifiable, and independent sources for this claim. After spending quite some time editing the article (and if you care to compare the original version with my final version, you'll see that the article improved quite a bit, I think) I decided that there was not enough substance to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PROF and prodded the article. I placed a prodwarning on the creator's talk page, thereby giving that person 5 full days to improve the article. In short: I improved the article, notified the creator of problems (through the justification in the prod and the prodwarning), and now propose it for AfD in a reasoned way and you now seem to imply that this is a frivolous AfD nomination? And what's with the nota above to the closing admin concerning stalking by Sticky Parkin? That editor !voted before you did so how can that count as stalking? If my search for sources is so minimus, it should be real easy for you to come up with good sources establishing notability without doubt. Please do so and post them here or in the artciel, because that way I can withdraw my nom an my previous work on the article will not have been wasted time. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have taken the trouble to go through your contributions history. Perhaps I missed something: what article did you recently (or ever) improve? 90% of your edits seem to be removing prod and other tags accompanied with acerbic edit summaries, leading to many unnecessary AfDs and a general waste of time. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The claim "second African American to receive specialty certification in vascular surgery", even if sourced, is not within guidelines. By Enchantress' standards will soon have an article on the 3rd Romanian American to receive certification in OB/GYN etc. VG ☎ 13:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and questions to the nominator. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to verify that the subject is notable, specifically with regard to WP:PROF. Having searched a fair bit I'm still drawing nothing but co-authorship and random mentions... neither of which really add up to much. Incidentally, the nominating editor has followed the prodding process to the letter... I'm not too impressed with some of the criticism regarding that. one brave monkey 19:46, 22 October 2008 (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.