Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Masson

Add links
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 delete. StarM 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Masson

[edit]
Lisa Masson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested speedy, a résumé-like puff piece. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mgm, for pointing out "all the positions" ... from WP:NOTE "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."Webwinnow (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. Citations/sources added.Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--after spending some time on this article, I'm convinced that it's fluff, since there's no notability and the author has tried to spice it up as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belated and sincere thank you for the effort you put in ... have learned a lot from your edits and it is much appreciated. Would you revisit the hopefully improving version? Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it seems to me that the author is a member of the Masson family--see their other contributions. So let's add COI to the problems. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: interested in biographies of strong women and interesting men. Would like to work on Corita Kent; DJ Hall (the artist, not the football player); Erik Lindgren; Dean Joan Shaeffer (Academic Dean): but, will I survive this? Disheartening. Webwinnow (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ray of hope in your remark, and I agree, the positions alone or en masse are compelling. Avidly continuing to pursue the verification process. RE: MBA - don't know why: speculation suggests adds substantively to administrative success. Webwinnow (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Many grains of sand make a beach." - Old Chinese Proverb Webwinnow (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COmment no prior edits. Dlohcierekim 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was just about to comment the same using {{SPA}}. This user's first edit was to this page—an unlikely choice. It's of little import though, as the reasoning is empty. Wikipedia's goal is not normative, but informative. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normative or informative, YamiSorceress makes a valid point: female physicians are noticeably underrepresented in W. The remark inspired a bit of rough research. List of physicians includes about 446 doctors, about 14 of whom are female, or about 3%. Interestingly, of these 14 women, only 4, less than 1%, are listed primarily as physicians, the rest appear primarily under other categories including writer, criminal, and “other activities.” Webwinnow (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's quite a reasonable point. It's quite likely, even, that women physicians are underrepresented. That is not, however, a reason in and of itself to keep an article which does not meet the notability criteria. Instead, what should be done (if one's goal is to improve their representation) is to create articles about other, notable women physicians. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right; the comment was just a statistical observation. The goal is not to improve their representation, but to simply point out that the representation of female physicians is sparse. The article under discussion represents an example of a physician who has achieved a significant degree of notability, perhaps more than any other female, contemporary physician. Therein is the choice. Your thoughtful remarks are appreciated.Webwinnow (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known as a compelling speaker in Northern California. Merced Pharmacist
The comment signed "Merced Pharmacist" was actually made by Forwardfull (talk · contribs · count) Dlohcierekim 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Wiki's definition of fame is rather capricious. Being Surgeon General is quite a high bar to pass for a physician. Were this person a porn star or musician, simply a published work would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardfull (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Forwardfull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, most musicians and porn stars do not qualify as notable (this is different from fame) and those articles are deleted on a daily basis. It isn't our role to decide which profession contributes most to society. Our role is to document verifiable facts from reliable sources. The problem in this article isn't the "claims", which may support inclusion, it the "verification". No one can find any 3rd party reliable sources that demonstrate that the claims are accurate. That a doctor is "more important" than a porn star is an opinion, even if most people agree, and not the criteria here. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related Observation: It does appear that if a porno-person opens an orifice and successfully sells sex, becoming a star, that is considered potentially “notable”; yet if a physician opens an orifice and successful sells medicine, becoming a well-known spokesperson, it’s somehow “immoral” or considered advertising. Example, this entrant is a nationally recognized medical spokesperson, but it has been suggested, and accomplished, that reference to her numerous speaking engagements be deleted, thereby abrogating a wealth of reliably sourced criteria for inclusion. If our goal is to inform, provide information, and not to judge, isn’t this an arbitrary form of censorship? Webwinnow (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepShe is a nationally known Educator, interviewing countless students for MIT Admission, for nearly two decades, teaching Resident Physicians, giving medical lectures in many states across the USA, and writing medical articles for publication. Piacera (talk) 03:40, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lisa_Masson&oldid=1117938780"