Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Grant (surgeon)

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. --VS ^talk 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Grant (surgeon)

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=rg424&DepAffil=Surgery. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with numerous bios of run of the mill specialists. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Columbia specialist article with no independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Medline finds 12 papers for "RT Grant" which seem to be his; there might be others under "R Grant", but it's too common a name to search. Google Scholar finds 42 and 27 citations for two papers he coauthored, but nothing else has been cited above 20 times. He's only on the editorial board of one journal. He is the editor of a book with McGraw-Hill which is currently in press. I believe that this just falls below the threshold for WP:PROF at the present, especially given the concerns regarding the agenda of the article's creator. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Google scholar search should pick up his papers. The first six seem to be the right R. Grant, but in each case he is the second last of many authors, and in the other he's third last. Even if the number of citations would be enough to make him notable if he was the first author listed (which is borderline), his position on the lists of authors implies that he only made a minor contribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a clinician primarily, not a research--thats why he's Adjunct faculty. Her has to be judged on his notability as that. But he's adjuct faculty oat both of the leading NYC medical schools, and he's Chief of Plastic Surgery in the main teaching hospital for one of them, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. that makes him one of the two top academic plastic surgeons in NYC. If someone has another med school or two in mind, he's still one of the top 3 or so plastic surgeons in NYC. DGG (talk) 00:21, 31 January 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.