Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Marashi


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Amir Marashi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The purpose of this is advertising for a cosmetic surgeon. His scientific contributions are trivial--much is made of a single case study. The references are mostly or entirely PR, as is typical for cosmetic surgeons.

Cosmetic surgeons of all specialties rely on advertising. They've discovered their most effective medium (next to local newspapers & talk shows) --Wikipedia   I'm trying to delete the 90% of their  articles that do not show some unmistakable basis for notability, such as president of a national society or editorship of a national journal (Tellingly, almost all people who do meet normal non-promotional  qualification do not have articles, and those that do are not prarticualrly promotional .)

The article is written by one of our declared paid editors, much of whose work ins on marginal figures. It is part of the evidence why we should not accept paid editing at all in  Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. Has extensive sources including from the New York Post, Allure Magazine, and Gold Coast Bulletin. It could use some rework but it doesn't warrant deletion. Michepman (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a tricky one because there are some decent sources here, and I'm not sure you can write them all off as flat-out PR. However, I'm landing on delete because in my view even the best sources (probably the three mentioned by Michepman above) are not really about Marashi. They are about vaginal cosmetic surgery, and Marashi is used as a useful quote and to add colour to the piece. And one of the reasons for that is almost certainly because he has a very effective PR operation, not because he is actually notable by any reasonable standard. Hugsyrup 11:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Having examined the article thoroughly, I will say that it reeks of total PR in whole and not necessarily because the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a means of advertising.  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are third-party sources, in the end it's a promotional piece right down to the smarmy-looking publicity photo. The medical procedure, which itself is more notable, is being used to prop up the article subject. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- Per compliance with WP:NOTPROMO, which states information "must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery", the article does not meet the WP:DEL-REASON criteria for advertising (WP:G11 or WP:ADMASK). If editing is needed to achieve a more neutral tone, the article can be improved as there are multiple reliable, independent secondary sources (29,, and Coast Bulletin) to demonstrate notability via WP:BASIC. In addition, the subject's co-authorship of a case report selected for publication in the peer-reviewed Medical Journal (established in ) meets WP:ANYBIO section 2 as the "person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Per WP:FCOI guidelines, the article was approved for publication via the Articles for Creation process. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the article's talk page and on my user page in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. E-Stylus (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not aware of it, but case reports are the most trivial form of biomedical publication. The standard you are proposing would let anyone who had ever been a co-author of a scientific publication have an article in Wikipedia (which essentially means anyone who has ever receiveda PhD in science), and analogously the author of a single published short story or single poem.
 * Gold Coast Bulletin and the other publications you mention are an epitome of what are NOT r eliable sources for the accomplishments of physicians.  DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The BMJ is one of the world's oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals such that its authors' contributions would be more "widely recognized" than other publications in general. The subject and the case report were covered by Health, Fox News, and the New York Post. If the subject falls short of WP:ANYBIO, he still meets WP:BASIC which states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This guideline applies to all individuals, not to a specific profession. The references from Refinery29, Allure, and Gold Coast Bulletin are published secondary sources that provide coverage of the subject and his work. These sources are reliable due to the publications' editorial oversight. Each article includes independent commentary. E-Stylus (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We're seriously considering Refinery 29 as a reliable source in this discussion? Good heavens. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.