Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrick E. Antell

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. لenna vecia 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrick E. Antell[edit]

Non notable Droliver (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but Dr. Antell is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I determined that sun smoking and stress are harmful and cause premature aging long before this doctor did. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Droliver (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCitations for his 4 published scientific papers: 4, 3, 0, 0. Not notable, DGG (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that Dr. Antell meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. The published articles are the work product of his chosen career and not necessarily an indication that he is a significant presence in his field of work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His "groundbreaking" article is hardly cited by anyone else, and two articles total hardly makes one noteworthy (I published twice in medical school!). Fuzbaby (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference for "ground-breaking work" is the paper itself (that is, no WP:RS mentions the paper, so fails WP:BIO). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2009 (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.