Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dorian

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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dorian

[edit]
Paul Dorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested speedy deletion, not mine, and this probably should be speedy deleted. This page was deleted once through full process. The main AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UIS (company). This article describes its subject as a "physician" and "entrepreneur". Tagged for speedy deletion as the re-creation of deleted material, a number of editors wondered whether this article was about the same Paul Dorian. But this article claims that its subject was the Chairman of several companies including UISTP, suggesting that this is the same person as the one whose article was already deleted after full discussion. It also mentions the same non-notable "Forty Under Forty" business trade award that was mentioned in the other discussion. It would appear to be a re-creation of the same content. The medical articles cited do not appear to establish academic notability either. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that Dorian has been written about at length in several places and is currently the director of the Division of Cardiology at a notable University in Canada.[3]NanaRobins (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The former article was about an entrepreneur, writer and founder of UIS Technology Partners. This article made the claims that Dorian was a involved in the tech industry, and contained claims that he was the Chairman of several companies including UISTP. He made high profile business connections with companies such as Ferrari North America, The Jesuits, Pentech Financial, and the David D. Bohannon Organization. His company upgraded the 2-1-1 Emergency System for the government, at least until this edit by NanaRobins. It continues to contain a link to the Top 40 list, which describes a computer consultant[4]. NanaRobins added the claims about UIS and various tech jobs in the original version of the article[5] and removed them when it seemed this data was linking the subject to the deleted article.

    I'm not sure any of the medical journal references establish notability; simple membership in a professional association of specialists is not enough, and the academic notability guidelines require that published works be widely cited or recognized by others as influential. And frankly, at this stage I'm having trouble believing any of this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The administrator that declined the first article deletion posted on this article wall that the article needed to be rewritten. I also stated on the talk about during the debate that there was a question in my research about if the two people by the same name were the same person. Once this was cleared up I focused my research on info about the doctor and posted the other stuff on relevant articles concerning the CEO. If you are concerned about if the doctor is a notable person based upon his publications that is why I pointed out his publications in Harvard Review which I think we all know is highly credible and notable. And FYI the policy seems to say that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I think the Harvard thing makes that clear.NanaRobins (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a confused attempt to combine information about at least two people. One is the California businessman, who is the subject of ref. 21 & similar, and has previously been judged not notable here, I think correctly. The other is a University of Toronto cardiologist. Google Scholar shows his most cited articles to have 850 , 818, 802 hits, which , together with his university position, establishes him as an authority in his subject. These are extremely high citations even in biomedicine, and even considering many of them are as one coauthor in a large study. And what Harvard Review has to do with this I do not know: its a literary journal not an academic journal, with nothing much to do with the field of either person. I tend to wonder about a third Paul Dorian; perhaps there are more. A proper article could be written on the Toronto cardiologist , but the first step is to delete the utter nonsense in this conglomeration--so utterly nonsensical as to make me doubt both the competence & good faith of the contributor, something I do not recall ever before having occasion to say. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Hey DGG QUIT the Personal Attacks here! Not everyone is an expert at this stuff... besides you are operating on old information... slowly but surely this article is being revised and since you seem to actually agree that Dr. Paul Dorian is in fact notable enough to have an article then it seems a bit piety AND stupid to want to delete the article just because I'm editing it. After all if it were deleted who would recreate the new article and what would have been the point of deleting an article you have the intention of recreating. However, since you are reading up on the subject you are much more welcomed to add-in information to the article. But I should state something for the record: notability on Wikipedia isn't determined based on hits on Google or whatever.... In fact I think it says that somewhere... but the American Heart Journal is a medical journal :I apologize a little, for it is probable that the problem is either that Dorian has been published in many times. NanaRobins (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Paul Dorian notable enough to have an article, and iI have indeed been known to write articles on subjects of this sort. But it would not be reasonable to do so while there exists an article whose contents is inextricably mixed with material about some other person, and where the irrelevant material would remain in the article history. The only way I know to do this right, would be to entirely delete everything here and start over with a clean article history. I can add material to an incomplete article, I can delete errors, but there is a point beyond which such measures are impossible, and necessary to start over. One of these times when we must start over is when the alternative is to try to turn an article about one person into an article about another while retaining the history. I however apologize for the wording of part of my last sentence, and I reword it as follows: I cannot distinguish whether you are simply confused about what material applies to what person, whether you are trying to write about some person of the name without knowing or caring who he is, or whether you are trying to insert material about one person in the guise of writing about some other person. My working hypothesis under the charitable interpretation is that you intended to write about the executive, learned we would not accept it due to insufficient evidence for his notability , looked for additional material, found a number of items relevant to someone else of the same name, or possibly several other people of the same name, thought without reading them that you could use them to show the notability of the executive, but did not realize that they were totally incompatible with the prior contents, but are too stubborn to do the direct thing, which is to withdraw the article.. The uncharitable interpretation would be that you know the incompatibility perfectly well, and intend to eventually change back the article to being about the executive. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • That is a false accusation, Rainman64 is an entirely different entity, which is believed to possibly be you (not Mtking), as noted in a recent sockpuppet case. At this point, I think it is time to start looking for waterfowl. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a notable physician and academic. Google Scholar's many citations of his articles show his importance in the field, and I have added a paragraph to the article demonstrating his wider notability. The article in its current state is about this one person and there does not appear to be any confusion with anyone else named Paul Dorian. BTW the article would actually be improved if someone deleted that list of 15 references proving that he is a "published writer". His notability is clear enough without that nonsense.--MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to accept that this Paul Dorian is probably notable, however so as to be sure and to address DGG's point I still think the page should be deleted and all the revisions after (and including) this one should be restored, all the prior versions are a pure fiction as they are about a hybrid person. Mtking (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion of identity in the current article. So your argument for "delete" is specifically to wipe out the article history? That is very strange reasoning, and I don't think you will find it listed under the criteria for deletion. Personally I would think that maintaining the article history would be a way to guard AGAINST confusion appearing again - since the history documents that the erroneous information was earlier removed and why. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just made some changes, cleared out all that clutter of references to his journal articles (many of which were not accessible anyhow), and added a few significant publications (including two books for the lay public). As the article currently stands it is a straightforward article about a notable academic, and any historical confusion of identity is simply that: historical. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN. Notability for Dr Paul Dorian is easily met, and the current article is focused exclusively on him. I also don't see the need to delete the article's history - frankie (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2011 (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/Paul_Dorian&oldid=1069208314"