Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Shields (ophthalmologist)

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. Walton^talk 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shields (ophthalmologist)[edit]

non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talk • contribs)

Delete, non-notable ophthalmologist, possible vanispamicruftiwhatchamacallit. Also, don't forget to sign your posts, especially in deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is Professor of Ophthalmology at Thomas Jefferson University, and a position like this is almost certain to be notable.- I cannot tell from the site whether she is actually the head of its oncology service, which would add further notability The details of the many books which are mentioned should be added to the article, complete with some book reviews to indicate their significance. (And, to establish the importance of the work in general, some articles talking about it. With the claimed career, it should easily be possible.) It would be good to establish this before writing /rewriting an article on Jerry Shields, or trying to do a combined article. CS has a very brief web page at the hospital, JS does not.DGG 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Very Weak Delete - nothing claimed that shows she is notable per WP:PROF; if evidence to the contrary is produced I'll gladly change my mind. Just because the subject has tenure doesn't mean she's notable. And I'll do just that - keep, 54 co-authored oncology papers and what (appears) to be a notable text (Atlas of Orbital Tumors) does it for me - the article needs a good bit of work; however and its not my field so I'll leave it to others. Bigdaddy1981 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tenure--agreed, associate professors are not necessarily notable--full professors at major universities are in the top ranks of their profession, are more notable than the average professor, and have invariably published multiple notable works. I will improve the article though to show it if nobody gets there first; it does need improvement to show it more fully. DGG 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its becoming extremely annoying. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:59, 4 July 2007 (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.