Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William James Wanless

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. I've withdrawn the nomination and this obviously meets WP:SNOW. Since nobody else seems to be showing up to close it, I'm going to IAR and do it myself. I don't think anything productive will come from keeping it going, and this way the article has a better chance at WP:DYK. No reason the author should be penalized for this train wreck of an AfD. Thanks to all who worked on improving it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William James Wanless[edit]

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

Apparent hagiography that does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lines such as "He gave sight to 13,000 blinds" [sic] and "He began With a vision in his mind" cast some doubt on the neutrality of the author, and there doesn't seem to be in depth coverage in reliable third-party resources. It's possible that this may be improved, but it's been a couple of days and it doesn't seem to be getting much better. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the same . I have made necessary changes to the article. Kindly have a look. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been cleaned up significantly and has several relaible sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sir William Wanless was an enormously influential and notable figure. I will clean up the article and add references when I have time (which won't be this week). --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Silly nomination that could have been handled by a cleanup tag or a few quick edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can show me how this meets WP:BIO (or maybe WP:ACADEMIC?), rather than just saying it's "silly" and that he is "enormously notable". As far as I can tell, none of his accomplishments are particularly noteworthy. A delegate to the 1910 World Missionary Conference? Judging from the pic in that article, there were an awful lot of those. President of the Missionary Medical Association of India? Is that a notable organization? Is it the same as the Christian Medical Association of India? I don't know. Is 75,000 surgeries a lot? Does that somehow satisfy the notability criteria? Not as far as I can see. And, yes, the British Medical Journal wrote a nice obituary for him, but that's not really the best source to prove what a "prolific" writer he was; how about citing some of the actual stuff he wrote, so we can judge for ourselves how prolific he was? This is not just a matter of clean-up; as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to assert notability at all, at least as far our guidelines go. But, again, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to speedy keep. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly because the GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article uses multiple independent obituaries and other sources. You argument isn't over significant coverage in reliable sources, but about whether he deserved the coverage that he received, which is silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I never said anything about anybody "deserving" an article. And I generally agree with you about significant coverage in reliable sources trumping all else. I'm not here to argue with you, so can you leave off the name calling and just show me this significant coverage? Obituaries do not constitute significant coverage; if I die tomorrow, I will get an obit in the Los Angeles times, a very well-known and reliable source, but it won't get me a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to work on the article to improve it, and have done what I can so far, but I can't manufacture sources. It's by no means "silly" to ask for some. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "none of his accomplishments are particularly noteworthy", which is arguing that he didn't deserved the coverage that he received, an argument I find silly. While you may get a paid funeral notice in the paper, the equivalent of taking out an ad, you are not getting an obituary there. You may hope you get one, but unlikely, unless you are planning some mass murder-suicide, but I do admire your ego. Your also using a variation of the strawman fallacy. By knocking the LA Times, and arguing everyone gets an obit there, and ignoring his two other obituaries, including multiple articles in the New York Times. Finally, there was no name calling, if I had said "you are silly" that would have been an example of mild name calling, I called the nomination silly. Nominations aren't people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Calling something "silly" is exactly the sort of example used at WP:CIVIL, section 1 ("Direct rudeness"), letter d. (They're not calling the person "rambling crap", they're calling the content "rambling crap". A six-year-old might try to make a distinction, but adults like you and I and everyone else on Wikipedia know better.) I don't have to put up with personal attacks just because I dared to nominate some random article for deletion. I didn't do this to piss you off, so there's no need for personal remarks. Next time, leave them out.

As for the actual matter at hand - a source alone does not immediately equal notability. It has to be a source indicating some notable thing, and I don't see how any of those things in the lead paragraph indicate notability. I think I explained that pretty well. I didn't say they definitely don't - I said as far as I can tell, they don't, and I asked a bunch of questions. Pretty reasonable questions, I'd say. How many other 1910 World Missionary Conference delegates have articles here? Are there any? Do we even know? At any rate, I think it's safe to say there aren't any bios here whose sole claim to fame is attending that conference, so it's reasonable to conclude that that alone doesn't make Dr. Wanless notable, either. There are an awful lot of conferences in this world; why does his attendance of this particular conference matter? That's not a rhetorical question. Neither was my question about the Missionary Medical Association of India. I've never heard of it, I don't know what it is, and it doesn't have an article here, so it's not necessarily significant that he was president of it. From the sources (or lack thereof), it was impossible to say. As for the 75,000 surgeries thing, that turned out to have been fraudulently cited and has since been removed (by you) after I raised the question and pointed out the flaw. Needless to say, that doesn't seem very silly to me at all.

Actually that is all that matters: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir. I already said I agree with you. Unfortunately, there is no exact definition of "significant coverage". You say it's an obituary. I say it ain't. That's why we have these discussions - to see what everybody else says (or, as was the case here, to find better coverage and render the argument moot). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, there are now some sources that better prove notability. As I hoped from the beginning (and stated in my nomination), the page is improved and I'm all for keeping it. If anyone had bothered to do that a bit sooner, instead of just arguing semantics and making personal remarks, we could have closed this. But now we have another delete vote even if I withdraw mine, so it can no longer be speedied. Assuming everything remains status quo, it will probably SNOW close soon enough. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't !voting on the state of the article at any given time, we are !voting on the subject and their notability independent of the state of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for Deletion, not Subjects for Deletion. Obviously we don't delete articles for minor problems like bad spelling and grammar (or this one would still be in big trouble) but an article about a potentially notable subject can absolutely be deleted if sufficient sources can't be provided. Happens all the time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can read WP:before which says: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." or learn how to use the Internets, so you can perform some due diligence before you nominate. Or just say, hmmm, I wonder if an obituary in the New York Times and an obituary in the LA Times, and a knighthood may constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're still going with the whole personal attacks thing? Is that the situation? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete starting a missionary hospital is in no way notable. many such hospitals exist all over the world run by physicians of dubious competence. He is not notable professionally. clearly fails WP:BIO by miles.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion is always welcome, however, the GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That is the only rule that matters and trumps all others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Wikireader41 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't tell it from the article right now, and I don't have time to rewrite it this week, but I'll try to at least redo the lead paragraph to show his notability. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call him "the Albert Schweizer of India". He turned the once-small village of Miraj into the medical powerhouse of India. By the time he retired, the clinic he started had become a 250-bed hospital [1]; the Wanless Hospital (still named after him 100 years later) is now a 550 bed teaching hospital. [2]) He founded the first missionary medical school in India, in 1897.[3] Also still in existence are the Wanless Chest Hospital and the Mary Wanless Hospital. With a legacy like that - major hospitals founded by him and named for him, even the neighborhood of Miraj known as Wanlesswadi (how many people get a neighborhood of a city named after them?) - he almost defines notability. You wouldn't expect to find his writings at Google Scholar since he retired in 1928; he fills the much more basic requirement of WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is not a Just a neighborhood of Miraj but it is a place where the Wanless Chest Hospital is located and also recognized by the Government of India (Pin code of Wanlesswadi, Maharashtra is 416414.) And One more thing ,He himself doesn’t gave the name Wanless wadi but the citizens of this part of India have gave this Name to honor and remember Kaisar-i-Hind Dr. Sir William James Wanless as “ wanless-Wadi” that is Wanless town.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 15:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His name to Railway station- Also to the be noted that Indian railway has a station called ‘Wanlesswadi’ on Miraj-Sangli Route opened on 1st April 1907. And the official gazettee of goverment of India described Wanlesswadi as “famous for its medical institutions”maharashtra.gov-- . Shlok _{talk .} 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you asked “Is 75,000 surgeries a lot?” ( see above)if you think that 75,000 are not lot, please enlighten me about your notability criteria of a surgeon by number of surgeries. Also as The British Medical Journal. Described that he does 4000 to 6000 surgery in a year and he was working for almost 40 years. So The clime of 75000 surgeries by the web cite www.wanlessweb.org seems to me as possible. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know whether 75,000 is a lot by today's standards, let alone whether it's a lot by 1891 standards. And what was considered a "surgery" anyway? It's all very vague. But to answer your question, there is no standard of notability based on number of surgeries performed, no matter how high it is. More importantly, the BMJ source does not say he performed all those surgeries; in fact, it explicitly says that he did not perform all of them. They were performed at his hospital, but it does not give an exact number of operations he performed himself. I do not dispute that it is possible; I was not the one who removed the claim from the article, I just asked for a different source. If there is a reliable third-party source (not wanlessweb.org) that can back up that claim, it could certainly be included. Still, it would be good to explain how 75,000 compares to the average 19th century surgeon's career. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no standard of notability based on number of surgeries performed, then it should have been tagged as , (citation needed) . not as AFD.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two have nothing to do with each other. I did tag the statement as citation needed (another editor later deleted the whole thing) but that wasn't the only problem with the article. I didn't even mention it in my nomination here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Nominated for “He gave sight to 13,000 blinds” but to this nomination also you should have been tagged as , [citation needed], not as AFD, Kindly clarify. .. As of now the article have a statement " sight for 12,000 people " with references from reliable third-party resources : British Government.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely did not nominate for that reason. I listed that as an example of poorly sourced, not very neutral-sounding claims, but the reason the article was nominated was that it did not appear to meet WP:BIO. That is the only reason. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I'm telling you, but it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant. Can we make a case of Speedy Keep as well as DYK…? -- . Shlok _{talk .} 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because another editor has voted to delete. Someone may close it under WP:SNOW (but none of us should). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, to clarify: What I mean by "no standard of notability" is that we don't have a guideline for notability of doctors. Even if he had performed 1,000,000 surgeries, that doesn't mean anything on its own. Number of surgeries simply does not matter when determining whether someone is notable or not. What matters is significant coverage in reliable sources. If an article has some evidence that its subject is notable, and just needs some more, that would be cause to use a {{refimprove}} tag. But if an article has no evidence that its subject is notable, that's a case for AfD. (And if an article doesn't even try to claim that its subject is notable, it can be deleted immediately without discussion.) This one seemed to assert notability in some way, so I didn't delete it outright, but it didn't seem to offer any actual evidence, so after waiting a couple of days I brought it to AfD. It's nothing personal. That's how it works. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the information above about his enduring accomplishments which IMO satisfy WP:GNG. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from obviously passing the general notability guideline the subject also passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 with a knighthood. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this was discussed at length at this failed proposal and there was no consensus that a very low honor like O.B.E. (one of the lowest, in fact) automatically confers notability. I argued for it myself, but it didn't fly. There are more than 100,000 O.B.E.s, so a lot of folks at Wikiproject Royalty don't consider it to be a "significant award" under WP:BIO. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now you are taking this Personally. Don’t take it Plz. Regarding "100,000 O.B.E.s are there" citation is needed.. -- . Shlok _{talk .} 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?? What's personal about anything I said? If you want a cite, read Order of the British Empire and knight bachelor. It's right there in the lead section of each. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about an OBE being automatically notable? He had a fucking knighthood. For a start the 100,000 figure is for MBEs, members of the Order of the British Empire, rather than OBEs, who are officers of the Order of the British Empire. There is a still higher level , CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), and then we come to the yet higher level of KBEs, such as Wanless, who was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, far higher that an OBE, and even further higher than an MBE, of which there are about 100,000. Check out [4] for the full scoop. The discussion that you linked is about inherited titles, not honours awarded for personal achievements. Quite frankly, I'm appalled that anyone trusted with the position of administrator would persist in incompetently wikilawyering through this discussion rather than accepting that this nomination of an article that clearly established notability at the time of nomination, was a clear, disruptive, mistake and getting on with building this encyclopedia, and allowing others to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only appalling thing I can see is the absolutely astounding level of rudeness coming from everyone. If this guy is such a pillar of the Empire, why is he just now getting an article? Everybody just relax, for crying out loud, and let's stop acting like he was the second coming of Christ.

Now, if you can point me to a guideline that specifically says a knighthood immediately confers notability, all you have to do is link to it. I'd be happy to see it, because I've wanted one for a long time. I'm ever so sorry I used the wrong abbreviation (amazingly enough, an in-depth knowledge of British chivalry is not a requirement for adminship) but obviously I was not talking about Officers of the British Empire, because he wasn't one. You obviously knew what I meant, and my point remains: He was a knight bachelor—the lowest kind of knighthood, according to that article—and a member of the Order of the British Empire—the lowest and most popular order, according to that article. Not that it even matters, because I've already said numerous times that I'm 100% fine with keeping the article now. If I could withdraw the nom I would, but it would make no difference. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you said that "it really doesn't matter at this point because now it does appear to meet WP:BIO and the rest of this is irrelevant". Can we the stop discussion and Remove the tag.? -- . Shlok _{talk .} 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:11, 1 October 2010 (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.