Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Webb (medical physicist) (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SNOW applies in this instance. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Webb (medical physicist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of the article has again made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted.

He says, "Please can you get this wiki profile of me taken down or reinstated as was? The current article says NOTHING of useful academic or clinical relevance." LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The GScholar h-index of 70 is very high, and the subject has received significant awards and honors that are well referenced in the article. The subject clearly satisfies WP:PROF#C1. There are no BLP concerns about potentially negative information here and this request is not based on privacy concerns. Rather, the subject was apparently unhappy about this edit[1]. The edit trimmed the overly long portion of the article with extensive award citations that was indeed problematic in terms of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The edit also removed the "Biography" section since at the time the only source cited there, [2], was failing verification. Since then, User:GA-RT-22 provided a link to the archived version of the source in question at the article's talk page, and I have restored the Biography section, with a corrected source link[3]. If the subject of the article still has some concerns, they appear to me to be of content dispute nature, rather than of privacy nature, of the kind that we take into account when considering WP:BLPDELETE requests. The subject should be directed to raise them at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the last AFD in September, subject is still notable, and WP:DINC. Subject can request changes on the article's talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC. Nothing has changed since the previous AFD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per discussion on previous AfD. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Either let me edit it my way or take it down" is not the sort of valid privacy reason that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is supposed to be about. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I know that September might seem like a long time ago, but even so, there's no reason to relitigate this now. Notability was established, uncontroversially. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no valid reason for deletion. It's been a month and 21 days since the last time someone tried to delete this article. Natureium (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything else aside, academic notability criteria 8 states "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." With key words being in their subject area. The journal Physics in Medicine and Biology has an impact factor of just over 3, which is similar to or much higher than all the other medical physics journals I found in my survey, and has it been running for over fifty years and is therefore well established and major in that subject area. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the first AfD. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2020 (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.