Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Zbar

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Zbar[edit]

DeleteReason. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Zbar 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 medicineDroliver (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are various websites that describe the skills and professionalism of Dr Zbar. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I found some sources; I would be curious as to your opinion based on the knowledge of these new sources, as I am still undecided. Cazort (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that article, Cazort. From WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable...". However the Metroactive News article is actually about the activities of Interplast, not about Dr Zbar. Part of the article includes an interview with Dr Zbar. This isn't enough to demonstrate notability of Dr Zbar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is only really one solid paragraph in that article about Zbar's actions himself; but he is being referenced as an expert in the rest of the interview, which I think counts for something. Overall though, it's not that one source but rather, the combination of all the sources. I still think this case is marginal, though. But the main point is, I haven't tried very hard to locate these sources. Are there more that others could find? Cazort (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning towards Weak Keep. I actually have found one pretty good source: [1]. He also seems to have authored some articles related to plastic surgery: [2]. Some of the articles have a relatively high volume of citations. Middle initial is I; many articles are under "R I Zbar". I recognize that this may not be enough to establish notability but I found this with little effort and I think there's a substantial possibility that this article could be salvageable with more effort. Not all plastic surgeons publish and certainly not all who do are cited as frequently, so this guy seems at a brief glance to stand out to me. Cazort (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some reliable and independent sources Rirunmot (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are? Please either add them to the article itself or drop a link here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He has an impressive publication record, but no more impressive than any academic physician. Hairhorn (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny as I actually was Ross' medical student in 1997 when he was a resident. He was a great guy, but he just isn't a figure of any particular standing in the field. People confuse being one of a number of authors on some paper with being an authority or figure of note. I feel strongly that inclusion of non-notables in my profession dilutes the relavence and standing of wikipediaDroliver (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia is only hurt when it includes material that is not verifiable in reliable sources. In my opinion, this is the whole point of WP:N. I think the fact that wikipedia includes people, including professors, who may not be viewed as the most important or influential in their field, is actually an asset and strength, giving it, in my eyes, greater credibility. But I agree that this case is marginal, I still haven't found quite enough sources--I just thought that others might be able to chip in and find a few sources because it was so easy for me to find the ones that I did. Cazort (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable as a plastic surgeon, but did fairly important work in genetics of hearing: 24 peer-reviewed papers in WebofScience, citations 51, 43, 42 , h-index 12. However, he was not the leading author in the work, the people responsible was the much more notable RJH SMITH and the very much more notable K FUKUSHIMA. It is difficult to evaluate basic research done in the early years of a career of this sort as notable unless the person goes on to establish an independent career as a researcher in the field. On the other hand, if the earlier work is independent and very important, then the subsequent career being less notable does not matter--but it would take much more important early work than this. DGG (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While perhaps slightly notable in his area it doesn't sound like he is notable in the field. Also, the page contains some patently false information (like he is the first to do outcome studies on medical humanitarian trips) and that makes me worried that its purpose is self promotional. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by the article, subject is the most likable of the plastic surgeons recently listed for AFD, and the article does not have a promotional link to the subject's web site. However, with no secondary source analysis of contributions, the subject fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty adding a citation and so the subject is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single source is not sufficient to establish notability. It's basically only information regarding his work with the company presenting the information. No apparent coverage in reliable, third-party sources. لenna vecia 17:03, 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.