Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon)

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. Nakon 03:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy (surgeon)[edit]

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

Promotional resume, clear COI contributions Holypod (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ as a copyright violation from this. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I do think there is a case for notability due to his citation counts if the article were ever recreated without the non-neutral assertions and without the copyright violations. Clinical medicine citations are high and it looks like he's been credited for some big studies with a ton of authors, but even if you only look at the citations in GS where he's the first author, there are still several of those that have hundreds of citations each. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this vote as the issue was fixed. The problematic material was reinserted this morning by an editor who said he was working on behalf of McCarthy and Northwestern, but it should be easy to monitor for any further copyvio problems. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and revdeleted the copyvios (the one mentioned above was added in Cbarker1's first edit; the two prior edits by Marieraja were to add and then remove a different one directly from a press release). This got rid of most of the promotionalism as a happy side effect. I don't have an opinion on the article otherwise. —Cryptic 03:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the named professorship at Northwestern, which is by itself sufficient to meet WP:PROF. And very clearly an expert in his field: his two most cited works are multi-center consensus documents, with over 1000 citations each, but that shouldn't really count. Of the ordinary papers, there are 71 papers with over 10 citation, with 28 of them having citations over 200, Even in the high citation field of biomedicine, this is a remarkable record. Though promotional articles on borderline notable people should often just be deleted, promotional articles on really notable people should be fixed, even if it takes rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DGG's comments are convincing, this is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 14 May 2016 (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.