Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Duntsch


 * 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. North America1000 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Duntsch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was just restored from a speedy deletion. Subject appears to be a WP:BLP1E candidate, as they are the subject of a trial for malpractice. Additional concerns are that the article may not be able to be written fron a WP:NPOV due to subject matter, and also this may qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP Article needs some polishing but is a valid entry for a crime bio article Wikiwriter12345678 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP Deleting this article would amount to open source malpractice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.100.215 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is covered in multiple books over several years including The Remarkable Case of Dr Christopher Duntsch and The Truth About Big Medicine. There are multiple events here and ample coverage per WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Andrew and comments made at DRV. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsure Keep That the article called him "Dr. Death" which appears to be unsupported by the ref is concerning. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's fixed now. I split the paragraph but didn't attach the references to both halves. Natureium (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay looks good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep He has been convicted now, and the story is covered in multiple books and articles. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep All the references listed in the article are from reliable sources and dedicated to the subject. Meets notability requirements. Tapered (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I had initially thought this was a BLP1E case but looking closer it seems that he's gotten himself in the news multiple times. A sort of low rent Jayant Patel.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep He is the first doctor in the US sentenced to prison for malpractice. That is very significant.96.29.35.192 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely covered person and an important court decision. Ekem (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely covered and needs to be preserved for reference Eslonim (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There is barely any coverage on this guy. No major, big name sources. At this point in time his wikipedia page just seems like a hit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.121.93 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you Google it. There's vast, major media coverage, including national media outlets. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added three national news citations (CBS News, Washington Post and USA Today) but could have easily added 50 more. The notability and media coverage is extensive and beyond any dispute. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable as one of the most prominent, systematic medical malpractice cases. Extensive national and even global media coverage. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, Maintains neutrality. Notable in that a life sentence is unprecedented for medical malpractice. Provides basic information not readily available elsewherre. Will be the first place many will look for more information than is typically provided in news reports. TeArtUscur (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep massively notable case that appears to be a catalyst toward changing some things about the medical profession, at least in the US. Sources are abundant.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think my vote should be obvious, as I created the page and was able to find quite a few reputable sources and there are several civil suits pending. Natureium (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:34, 23 February 2017 (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.