| Revision as of 07:48, 1 August 2014 editJim-Siduri (talk | contribs)402 edits →Dr. Anna Frisch← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:35, 1 August 2014 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Keep''' - ] ] (]) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - ] ] (]) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Your reasons? ] (]) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC). | :::Your reasons? ] (]) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC). | ||
| *'''Keep''' Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do ''not'' believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:35, 1 August 2014
Dr. Anna Frisch
- Dr. Anna Frisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF, many MDs have listed professorships due to residency programs. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Article fails to support claim of "World Renown" (sic). No independent sources. Just a promotional bio; for me, this is borderline WP:G11. – Wdchk (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Info" I am not sure if i am adding this in the correct area. We are still currently updating the page for Dr Anna Frisch to reflect her elite status in the field of Endocrinology. --Xmxpro1 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- You are certainly welcome to contribute to the discussion here. I encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A list of scholarly articles written by the article's subject does not, in itself, provide enough information to determine the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. A promotionally-written article with its main editor, Xmxpro1, reverting any attempt to make it less promotional. From the citation record, the subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF. The only nontrivial source given is a local story about a medical patient who happens to have been treated by Frisch; there is no nontrivial coverage in it of Frisch herself, so no reason to believe she passes WP:GNG independently of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to suggest anything else than an actively practicing clinician with a research interest. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
- Delete. No proof for the claimed super status. MDs are not inherently notable. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- I also haven't edited the article. Plus, I have no interest in this person. And I have edits outside of this deletion discussion (now). Please drop your SPA charge. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
- Keep Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do not believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)