Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr paul harrington

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. Snow Keep. Clear consensus after DustFormsWords edited the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr paul harrington[edit]

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

Non-sourced, non-notable individual. mhking (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The doctor was the creator of harrington rods and first allpied 1944 his name is not in wiki only harrinton implant i think he should have a wiki page - (unsigned comment that accidentally deleted the discussion, rescued and merged by User:DustFormsWords)

Snow Keep - I have substantially expanded and improved the article. The fellow is clearly notable for his massive contribution to scoliosis treatment and his ongoing historical influence on the field, plus his discussion in numerous publications including Time Magazine. Please have another look at the (improved) article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've moved the page to Paul Randall Harrington to reflect both his correct name and correct capitalisation; commentors should be aware we're discussing that article and not the redirect I've left behind. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , rather clearly. Another evidence that when there does not seem evidence for notability it is useful to look for sources BEFORE nominating for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, the unintended consequence of Mhking nominating it for deletion was that my attention was drawn to the page and I improved it, so in this case it's turned out to be a win. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give DustFormsWords a barnstar. This person is quite notable (as indicated by the sources that have been added), and he deserves credit for doing the work to salvage this article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank DustFormsWords for helping with the expansion and sourcing.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to DustFormsWords' hard work (WP:PROF criteria 1) and the subject's mint bowtie (WP:NICEONEDAVE). Someone another 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 100% notable. Absolutely no reason to delete. However, the article should be re-titled Dr. Paul Harrington (capitalization and proper use of period) rather than "Dr paul harrington". Stonemason89 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Article has been renamed to Paul Randall Harrington, and WP:STYLE suggests both "Dr" and "Dr." are acceptable providing they're consistent. As an Australian I'm exercising my prerogative to go without the period. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's looking quite good as it stands. Notability has been established by inclusion of reliable, independent third-party sources. Agree with others that DustFormsWords has done a great job here! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early closure as keep, which I'd do myself but non-admin closures don't stretch to snow keeps or massive improvement cases. DustFormsWords has done a brilliant job in rescuing this article. I left a barnstar to this effect - this is really one of those articles that Wikipedia can hold up as an it-was-nothing-when-it-started, got-nommed-for-speedy-and-AfDed, look-at-it-now efforts. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable now that it's been expanded ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 12 February 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.