Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A Lickstein

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. Clear consensus to delete. The only editors to argue for keeping provided no policy-based arguments. I also note that all the keep !voters have extremely limited editing history, and one of them has been indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David A Lickstein[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable doctor. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are mainly minor, mostly of the directory or listing type. He is briefly quoted in a couple of short (1-2 paragraph) articles. Many of the sources are from organizations he belongs to. (Jupiter Meds, in particular.) The publications that laud him are not significant. So we are lacking reliable sources, and there is nothing to show that he is notable. There is an air of promotion about the article. LaMona (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability seems to be established. I can see the "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine".Xandyxyz (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability seems to be established.Tll85 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Top Doctor" awards are far from establishing notability. This list (of a couple of dozen doctors in a small geographic area) comes from a company that names thousands of "top doctors" every year (one article said 6,000 [1]). Hospitals pay to have their doctors publicly visible in these lists. [2] While this particular company is considered to be honest, being one of thousands in this list is like being listed by the Better Business Bureau. It helps consumers, but it's not a sign of notability. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't feel very strongly about this case, but the sourcing is quite weak. Several cites are to a regulatory website, one to a lifestyle magazine, and the others to industry publications. So can we have more tests, doc? Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see element of notability in some of the references. However, the write may be asked to source for more usable references to boost the article.Odogu (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. Searches did not turn up anything to suggest this person meets the notability criteria. But it's a new article, and the article's creator might be able to turn up something I missed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy Per Onel15969, references don't prove WP:GNG and should be userfy(ed?) for more development. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., and absolutely do not userify. This is straightforward promotionalism for a plastic surgeon, by a SPA, and should have been removed as G11. There is nothing here to indicate that a proper article will ever be possible.I see no valid references; everything here is a essentially a press release; a "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine" is not notability--those sort of publications have no authority whatsoever. If it is, it would need to be done by someone with the obvious COI here. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources do not assert notability, as most of them solely mention the doctor and don't go into much detail about the doctor himself. There's also WP:NPOV issues as well given the wording in the "plastic surgery career" section. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (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.