Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muthana Mithqal Sartawi

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muthana Mithqal Sartawi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Kuwait. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He invented a new medical technique which has got him lots of media attention, a meeting with the Emir of Kuwait, and features in academic paper on the topic. I think he therefore passes:

WP:GNG on account of the multiple media sources already cited
WP:CREATIVE criterion 2, for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" - we don't normally use WPCREATIVE outside the arts, but he did literaly do what is in there, and creating a medical technique is...creative.
WP:ANYBIO criterion 2, for creating "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 ("The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." in his case, if the categories are correct, he's a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust a category to support it, it could be a mistake, hoax or deliberate misinformation. When I searched at Canadian Royal College Directory the name didn't come up. There is one paper along with two other names mentioning the operation and it was entered into the Knee replacement article. There is no mention on Google scholar. This man operates in North America and Canada and you would expect something, although I think lots of doctors are too busy to bother registering their emails but they still get indexed, but I can't see much. There is several papers of his where the citation is very low that are recent. Another doctor I'm working on at Draft:Hans-Christoph Pape has a very high h-index and there is at least 5 papers with more than 100 citations. This is a very crude measurements of notablily, but it gives a quick indication if they are notable. I can't find any papers of his approaching those citation counts. There was three people on that paper, so he could have been junior surgeon being trained by a consultant, who didn't want the hassle (a common scenario) Lastly, that paper has two citations, which is woeful. You've read the article and used that as the source instead of looking for independent evidence to verify for notability per WP:V. It is still delete. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair assessment about my point 4, but I still think inventing the technique alone is enough to warrant a keep vote. And the simple GNG. Right? CT55555 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proved anything. I couldn't find a single thing of worth on him. The first block of 7 refs, are passing mentions and profiles. A while ago, I learned they are usually written by the person themseleves. There was three folk who wrote that paper, but it needs coverage beyond it. There is nothing in that that first block of references that indicate he passes WP:CNG. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to prove anything, the article seemed to do that sufficiently well as it stands. It seems clear to me that he invented a new medical technique and that's a really big deal with regards to notability. Are you doubting that he invented a new medical technique? Or doubting that gives him a pass? I can probably be more specific if I understood your concern better. CT55555 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. I've asked another editor to take a look. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're being transparent about that, but also please be aware of WP:CANVASS directing canvassing activity towards central locations and away from specific individuals unless they made substantive contributions, expertise in similar topics, asked to be kept informed. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His (maybe lapsed?) fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, which was questioned above, is verified here (Wikipedia allows primary sourced material for academic issues) and that alone makes him notable for the reasons in my first comment above. More details about the same-day-knee replacement technique that the subject of the article created, is here. CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are profiles references, likely written by himself in a private hospitals. They are dreadful and again don't prove anything. scope_creep^Talk

You consider King's College Hospital Dubai not to be a decent source to verify if a doctor is a fellow? You think a globally renowned hospital network might be making false statements about the credentials of their doctors? This is a matter of verifiability, not notability (notability flows from the fact to be verified). I'm sorry to say that your dismissal of this so strongly is surprising. It would be global news if the guy who replaced George Bush's knee joint, the guy endorsed by the Emir, was faking his credentials on one of the most famous hospital networks. This is not a credible scenario. CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This fellowship is obviously not a "highly selective honor" in the sense of WP:NPROF: according to the article, "about 90% of certified physicians decide to become Fellows within two years of their certification", i.e., it's not a particularly competitive or prestigious position. --JBL (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, well made. I agree. I was wrong about that bit.

We should not confer notability by his fellowship. I do remain keep on the basis of him inventing a new medical procedure. CT55555 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference to working on George Bush's knee joint states: he was among the medical team that performed an operation for former US President George W. Bush?!. He didn't lead it, or it would have mentioned it.

So far we have

He invented a new medical procedure, yet the paper has three authors, so he could be the junior partner and the other two consultants.
The citation count for the papers I've looked are very low, so probably doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. I can't identify his h-index. For example, I'm working on Draft:Hans-Christoph Pape. Its 3 second of work in Google Scholar to see he is notable, but can't see anything on this man.
He has a lapsed FRCSC. Doesn't prove he notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of authors talking about his work on a paper isn't important. That he invented a new medical procedure is the key thing here and let's ignore everything else and acknowledge that is a very notable thing. CT55555 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The highest-cited paper I could find had 16 citations (and all the others were very low); that doesn't suggest meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, operating on Bush's knee isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inventing the medical procedure is what I think makes him notable. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have sought input from WikiProject Medicine here CT55555 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Your starting to repeat, ad nauseam, inventing the medical procedure. That is form of WP:BLUDGEON. Can you calm it right down. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. And sorry if I did that, it did seem like nobody was listening. Any bludgeon is not intentional. I'll not repeat it. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per CT55555 --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the medical procedure he invented and patented. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to lean keep for the seemingly notable knee replacement methodology (is WP:NACADEMIC perhaps in need of medical supplementation for these kinds of medical developments?), though I expect the limited amount of independent coverage will mean it's mostly stub length for the time being. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question about WP:NACADEMIC. I say yes, but what's the way to get there? Village Pump? Talk page of WP:NACADEMIC? CT55555 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (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.