Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Shafer

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Shafer[edit]

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

This Wikipedia page refers to me. I have several concerns, and I think the easiest solution is to simply delete the page on the basis that I don't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability.

I have excellent evidence that the page was created by Conrad Murray's defense team following his trial for the death of Michael Jackson. Specifically, a review of the history of the page shows that at the time this article appeared, the ONLY reference was to my defense of Robert Markman. Concurrently, Paul White, the anesthesiologist expert for Conrad Murray, circulated e-mails saying "You can't believe what Shafer has been up to. It is about to appear on the Internet." And, voila!, my page appeared.

Robert Markman is an anesthesiologist who used propofol in his home to treat his daughter, who had suffered for nearly 2 decades from intractable pain. Markman gave propofol as an anesthesiologist would, using a proper infusion pump, with full (and even excessive) monitoring. Dr. Markmen kept detailed records. Dr. Markmen documented the efficacy of propofol for his daughter's intractable pain. I knew of the case because Dr. Markman submitted it as a Case Report to Anesthesia & Analgesia, where I am Editor-in-Chief. This is exactly the opposite of Conrad Murray's indefensible use of propofol for Michael Jackson. However, I am certain the goal of creating my page was to suggest that my testimony against Conrad Murray was inconsistent with my defense of Dr. Markman's use of propofol.

I've been an anesthesiologist for 30 years. I'm a researcher, journal editor, and entrepreneur. However, my Wikipedia page suggests that I am primarily a legal consultant, a trivial part of my professional life. On the talk page associated with my page I have offered suggestions for what the page should contain if it is to actually represent what I do for a living. The material on misconduct has garnered significant media coverage.

Bbb23 has been helpful. We have had a lot of dialog, and I think it has been exemplary in terms of openness and thoughtful exchange. However, Bbb23 has also blocked my ability to have my page accurately reflect what I do. I've noted a number of changes on my talk page that should be added. It is clear that Bbb23 won't let me edit the page to make it accurate. I'm sure Bbb23 has his or her reasons, and I don't doubt the intent of Bbb23 to enforce Wikipedia policy. However, my page isn't accurate. It doesn't contain egregious errors of fact. Rather, it simply presents a very narrow, and hence distorted, aspect of my career. It seems to me that if I am to be listed in Wikipedia, then it should at least be accurate.

I have no need for a Wikipedia page. My Stanford page is accurate. Interested individuals (if any) can also find out quite quickly what I do simply by searching for Shafer SL on PubMed.

Rather than worry about my Wikipedia page, or have some sort of editing battle with Bbb23, I'd prefer to simply see the page deleted.

I appreciate your consideration.

Steve Shafer, Slshafer (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure precisely what Steve is referring to when he says I've blocked him from editing the article. I probably could dredge it up in the history, but I'll assume that Steve has a better memory of it than I do. My guess is the material he wanted to add wasn't reliably sourced, but that's a guess. I'm not going to vote on this nomination because I don't think I can review it objectively. I realize we don't delete articles just because the subject doesn't want them, but we do sometimes delete articles of subjects who have only borderline notability by Wikipedia's standards when the subject requests it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, is memory so short? You deleted my post yesterday because you said that the primary source (the report of the California Medical Board) wasn't acceptable. It is THE definitive source, hardly an entry that "wasn't reliably sourced." And, via the URL that I attached, it was accessible to any reader. This is all reflected on your talk page, where we have had a lengthy and thoughtful discussion. I've particularly appreciated our discussion about primary sources (my preference) and secondary sources (your preference).

A review of the history of the page will show that you have deleted everything I've edited.

Since I

1) can't predict what you will and will not consider an acceptable source,

2) defer to your expertise on Wikipedia norms, and

3) recognize that no human can (or should) compete with bots when it comes to editing Wikipedia,

let's just delete the page.

As mentioned above, I do appreciate our thoughtful dialog.

Steve

Slshafer (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sometimes my memory is that short (I'm so preoccupied with my trip to Mars), but in this instance I thought you were talking of something that happened well before the most recent issue. BTW, secondary sources are not my preference; they are Wikipedia's.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My initial reaction is to ~~Redirect~~ to Anesthesia & Analgesia, since Shafer is the editor. I think this article can be deleted (by redirecting), with any relevant text about Shafer's career as editor merged into the Anesthesia & Analgesia article. The subject wishes deletion, and in such cases we weigh the sources and see if the person is borderline notable, which is what Shafer's biography appears to be. If Shafer was strongly notable then I would have argued to keep the biography. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent commentary has shifted my viewpoint to Keep per PROF. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As editor-in-chief of a notable journal, Shafer likely passes WP:PROF. However, I concur with his WP:UNDUE concerns: there is too much focus on his expert testimony and not enough on his academic accomplishments. This needs to be fixed if the article is to be kept. If someone is willing to take the article in hand and bring it up to shape before the AfD closes, it's possible it can be saved. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone"? You're an experienced editor and a professor. Who better than you? :-) Part of the problem is, based on the number of page watchers, not too many editors are interested in the article (sorry, Steve).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no particular expertise in medical biography, and my time is not unlimited. But I did a little work on it this evening. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C8. I don't see that the article has any content that violates WP:BLP , but see Eppstein above about WP:UNDUE. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep after Xxanthippe's improvements (reducing the expert witness content to a single sentence about a notable trial). As she says, he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 as well as (per my earlier comment) #C8, and the lifetime achievement award of the International Society of Anaesthetic Pharmacology is probably also good enough for #C2. I'd be willing to let the subject's preferences take priority in borderline cases, but the citations are too high for this one to be borderline. I've watchlisted it, so if the subject has concerns that can be handled by editing rather than deletion, we can discuss them on the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being the EIC of a well-established journal, the Web of Science lists more than 200 papers, cited over 7000 (!) times with an h-index of 42. I dare say that this is even above the mean for full professors at Stanford, let alone lesser institutions. I'm sorry that Shafer felt obliged to take this article to AfD in order for it to be cleaned up and become an acceptable bio. I hope that the recent edits by Xxanthippe and David satisfy him and in that case to close this AfD as a WP:SNOW keep. I'll keep the article watchlisted for a while, an extra pair of eyes can never hurt. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As editor of the major journal in the field, Shafer is notable beyond question. This is not a borderline situation. The other matters seem to have been dealt with. I hope the subject will now withdraw the request for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Note also that the reasons given for deletion ("I have no need for a Wikipedia page", and related statements) don't have any basis in Wikipedia policy and should be disregarded. Pages don't exist to meet the needs of their subjects. Saying that people can find information about Shafer elsewhere is equivalent to saying that Wikipedia is useless, an opinion the nominator is free to hold but isn't likely to find a welcome reception here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think notability is now established. However, I do agree entirely with the WP:UNDUE concerns raised above, and this article will need to be carefully watched to make sure it does not become a coatrack or otherwise defamatory. I've added it to my watchlist, for whatever this is worth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 5 January 2014 (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.