Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchel P. Goldman

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel P. Goldman

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

appears non-notable Tone of article is also promotional, and article was created by Morning277. Mdann52 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability because of extensive publications. But WP:TNT for sure. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He probably meets WP:PROF#C1 (not through quantity of pubs but through high citation counts) but the pay-for-play issue makes me disinclined to let him get any amount of promotion for his dollars. Better just to delete it and wait until someone without a conflict of interest cares enough to create a properly neutral article. (Or blow it up again, if he tries to promote himself this way again.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix: The subject's publications have been cited 9,375 times, with an h-index of 55 (i.e. 55 of the subject's publications have been cited over 55 times): which clearly shows that the subject has made a significant impact in his field, thus it meets WP:NACADEMICS#1. I don't see any very major issues in the article (not much promotional content): no need to delete and start over again (see WP:BEFORE § c1). The article has since (after the block of Morning277 for long-term abuse and sockpuppetry) been substantially edited by non-affiliated editors to remove the promotional content. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Horrific article with vastly inadequate and promotional sourcing (an Amazon author profile? Really?) Goldman meets WP:ACADEMIC and we should have an article on him, but this is irredeemable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took out almost all of the assertions that I couldn't attribute to independent sources. There are still two self-published references (one to his DOB and another to his medical practice), but those can be easily removed as well. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been cleaned up and the subject is notable enough. Self-published sources for trivial biographical information are fine. I agree it's unfortunate (and a systemic bias issue) that notable people who self-promote are the ones who end up with articles in topics with patchy coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2015 (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.