Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyril Michael Hetsko


 * 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. I'm not going to Draftify this article as there already is a version of this article in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Cyril Michael Hetsko

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I have major concerns about the notability of this, but the creator (with likely COI) insists on publishing it so here were are. The sources cited are either primary or provide passing mentions only and therefore fall far short of WP:GNG; meanwhile I cannot find anything in the career details which would make this notable per WP:NPROF. (Note: this is a copypaste move of a declined AfC draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify, again. This reads like a resume. We need more details than just dates and names and numbers. I think being on the AMA taskforce would make him eligible, likely also on the Wisconsin covid taskforce. Please rewrite and do more than simply stating where he went to school and worked from xxx to yyy date. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please point to the guideline that establishes notability per the AMA or Wisconsin COVID taskforces? Also, this has already been draftified before, which the creator has disputed, as I mentioned in the nom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC criteria 3,, being on a selective board, or at least that's how I interpret it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Oaktree b; that's not my interpretation, but I could be wrong of course. As for draftification, given that this has already been back and forth between the draft and main spaces (under a slightly different name), and therefore per WP:DRAFTOBJECT should not be draftified again, would you like to reconsider your !vote? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * • Keep - Page seems to be real and is well sourced. Not a resume or self promotion cause the person is dead. Wikipedia Community (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we are honoured to have your third-ever edit at this AfD. Just FYI, it can still be a resume, even if the person is dead. And self-promotion isn't the only type of promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see WP:NPROF: it doesn't look like he was a fellow of the AMA, and I don't think serving on a task force grants NPROF notability.  That leaves WP:BASIC/WP:ANYBIO.  A specialty biographical dictionary (Czech-rooted people in medicine) is surely far short of a national biographical dictionary, but seems to be the best claim that I see.  I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, although there are scattered brief mentions in e.g. the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and the Tuscaloosa News, as well as a few in the article.  The most likely roots of notability are in the past 20 years, and I don't think we're missing pre-internet sources.  Watching, and will change my !vote if better signs of notability are uncovered.  If the article is somehow kept, it should be moved to Cyril Hetsko or possibly Cyril M. Hetsko, as the subject does not seem to have rarely used the full name.  The article is the result of a copy-paste move, and the history would also need to be merged. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The American Medical Association doesn't (currently) have fellows. He was, according to the article, on the board of trustees of the AMA, which is probably the best claim of notability asserted in the article. Jahaza (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would suggest that serving on the board of trustees of the AMA is comparable to serving on the board of a major US corporation. I don't think that such service is an automatic notability pass, although it might generate the kind of coverage that would help to meet GNG.  Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:PROF, citation counts too low (in a high-citation field) for C1, and being on a board is not anywhere near the same thing as membership in a highly-selective academic society. So we're left with WP:GNG. And while the article is larded with plenty of sources, none of them appear to meet the requirements of independence, reliability, and depth of coverage needed by GNG. In particular, publications by the subject and paid family obituaries of the subject count for nothing in this regard. I don't see the point of draftification; the subject is dead, so unlikely to generate any more notability than we can already find at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify The article has good potential of been improved but fails WP:PROF and has good potential to pass WP:GNG if on draft.Princek2019 (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (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.