Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Imber

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 no consensus. L Faraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Imber[edit]

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

Highly promotional article for borderline notable physician. sourced mainly to promotional interviews he has given. Possibility of notability as an author, but the article would need to be entirely rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a borderline notable physician per the sources in the article. I could care less if the article needs to be rewritten. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only minimal impact in citation databases. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation, the current way it is written is suspect due to the paid editing stuff. --Rs chen 7754 09:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubbify. The article is highly promotional but I think coverage of Imber in the New York Times, Independent, etc. make him sufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2013 (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.