Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony C. Griffin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthony C. Griffin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable figure in our field Droliver (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The New York Times piece showing in the footnotes gets this one 80% over the notability bar. THIS PIECE from Black Enterprise is good enough for the other 20%... With over 16K hits for a google search of his exact name + plastic surgery, it's pretty clear that this as-seen-on-TV Beverly Hills plastic surgeon passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually get over 102K Google hits on MY name due to cross links from all over (including a NYT mention a few years ago)and a blog I write. It doesn't make me notable as a plastic surgeon either. This is fame a mile wide and a millimeter deep. In context, this doctor is not a notable figure by any stretch of the imagination in our field by academic standing, publications, noteriety, etc.... Just keeping it real. Droliver (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He certainly doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC; his publications are nil, and his practice appears to be a run-of-the-mill private practice. His appearances on TV don't add much to his notability. However, being featured in the lead of the NYT article, together with the substantial article at Black Enterprise, may be enough to meet the requirement for "substantial coverage by multiple independent sources". He also gets quoted in the NYT here and the Philadelphia Inquirer here. I'm thinking he makes it - for general notability rather than professional standing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (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.