Talk:Andrew Cappuccino

Notable?
I would have to say not notable; in a Google search I find no 2nd-party reliable sources to establish notability. I suggest making this article a redirect to Kevin Everett. --Una Smith (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the proposed deletion tags from this article. I think the combination of the citation record displayed by Google Scholar (which looks quite impressive for someone who is primarily a clinician rather than a researcher), the news coverage of his treatment of Kevin Everett and the previous news coverage mean that there is enough potential notability to mean that this should at least be discussed at AfD before deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to go through AfD, then we can do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In an AfD, I'd probably argue that Cappuccino is notable, if not via the conventional medical structures, then through his numerous mentions in the popular media. Am never opposed to changing my mind in the face of better evidence, fwiw. Antelan talk  22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the mentions are incidental to reports about Kevin Everett. Anyway, if no one can be bothered to adequately source the article then it still should be deleted, right? --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the policy is verifiable, not "scrupulously attributed with citations, thoughtfully edited by people who can be bothered to do so." If there is something in the article that you challenge, feel free to tag it as such. Antelan talk  03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take the point that biographies of living persons do require scrupulous attribution with citations and thoughtful editing. Also, this person is most notable for treating Kevin Everett and one aspect of that treatment is highly controversial. --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, in that case the unsourced material can be removed. You could even argue for stubbification on those grounds. However, that doesn't mean that the article itself should be deleted, even per policy. There are good arguments for the deletion of this article; yours is a good argument for removal of some of the content, but not of the article itself. Antelan talk  21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability
I hope that the editors who claimed during the AfD that this this article meets the notability requirements will turn those words into action that addresses the notability tag to the satisfaction of whoever placed it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've more clearly asserted his notability, but I'm hoping to get outside eyes to review this and remove the tag if they see fit. Antelan talk  03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally placed and have now removed the notability tag. Even after discussion at AFD, I still think there are mild WP:ONEEVENT concerns, but based on media recognition, and some apparent medical community acknowledgements I'll agree with Antelan the tag can be removed. Mitico (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Cappuccino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://new.reillycomm.com/acuity/article_detail.php?id=515
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917165002/http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2007/09/bills-news-conf.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2007/09/bills-news-conf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)