Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Grunebaum


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Amos Grunebaum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article suffers from multiple issues, any one of which should lead to its deletion. First it is an unsourced biography (there are two sources used, neither appears to be a reliable source, and both of which are dead links). Second, it does not indicate any notability of this person. Third, it appears that it was mostly written as a vanity article by the subject himself - note the abundance of IP edits from 140.251.117.129 which geolocate to Weill Cornell Medical College where the subject works Brad Dyer (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC) The article needs to be cleaned up, extended and properly referenced.Cathar66 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking through online articles he seems to pass the Notability criteria -(he has appeared on news programs, television, been quoted in newspapers and magazines and has authored numerous academic articles and is co-author of Dr.Ruth's Pregnancy Guide for Couples).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Brad Dyer, and disagree with Cathar66: being quoted in the lay press and authoring academic articles and textbook chapters does not make one an exceptional academic. Moreover, he seems to be drumming up business with self promotion. He is not a full professor or anything similar, at least as far as I can tell, as required for notability at WP:PROF. BakerStMD T&#124;C 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Aside from the Telegraph article, most of the bibliography are his papers. A 1984 paper has almost 400 citations, but they go down rapidly from there (e.g. h-index is 10) and, given that academic medicine is a high-citation field, this is probably about average. Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete - Lightly cited, none of the papers or authorship rise to WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Appears to be a bit of self-promotion. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2015 (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.