Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur DeBoer


 * 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 No consensus. NawlinWiki 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur DeBoer
Physician - assertion of notability is that he was a pioneer in congential heart defect research. "Arthur DeBoer" and "heart" turns up two possible hits, so I can't verify notability. Not convinced that being a pioneer in Chicago or the first at a particular hospital is notable. -AED 22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. I'm still not clear on what grounds he is most notable, but he has conducted a significant amount of research that should meet WP:PROF. -AED 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete does appear to have co-authored a few papers in the field, but still not enough to convince me of notability. -Elmer Clark 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Pioneer" is notable. He did one in '58, and that's about as pioneer as it gets for open heart surgery.  Rklawton 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are either of those points verifiable? -AED 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of WP:RS, the only link is not an independent source. Sandstein 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just google "DeBoer cardiac" and there's evidence. Most of his notable work is pre-Net. VivianDarkbloom 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as per WP:V ST47 11:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep subject's notability is asserted in the article. Subject is probably verifiable but (shock horror) maybe not on the net. Mallanox 11:53, 28 August 2006 (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.