Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Riskin


 * 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. Nomination is overrun by SPAs. No prejudice against renomination by another editor in good standing. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan Riskin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are authored by the subject or lists in which the subject appears. ZhangYongWang (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been informed by User:NimbleToad that this article was previously logged for deletion when it was a draft (WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Dan_Riskin). The result was keep, but I note that the two keep votes came from users whose edit history suggests a WP:Conflict_of_interest. ZhangYongWang (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This is a repeat of a discussion from last month, proposed by a new member. Out of 5 comments last month, only the nominator voted delete. I am an editor and an engineer in the field of healthcare quality. I do not know the subject personally and do not believe there is a CoI. In my opinion, references to Congressional testimony and peer-reviewed literature represent curated work, document the subject's position in the highly contentious and important field of healthcare reform, and should not be excluded based on the subject's involvement. More comments are welcome. NimbleToad (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with NimbleToad that a repeat of the discussion from 3 weeks ago fails Deletion policy. Updated the page to highlight subject's influence on data-driven healthcare and value-based healthcare, which are both related to healthcare reform. Not sure I have concern over refs as long as they have clear attribution and support the text. Agree with ZhangYongWang that 5 comments in the last discussion was light and more feedback would be preferable. Alpharun (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a strange coincidence that as of time of writing this comment, the nominator and two voters have combined edits of one hundred. The article also appears to be a case of WP:CITEKILL, making this page dubious. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow, completely agree with Arun Kumar SINGH. Got overenthusiastic adding refs during the AfD discussion. Just pared them back, though happy to cut further if anyone feels the page needs it. Alpharun (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep since I don't see any actual argument against WP:NOTABILITY, which was the point of this AfD. There are enough secondary sources over a period of time to support basic criteria in WP:BIO. The primary sources are irritating, but aren't particularly misused. There have been a lot of editors of the page and the content seems reasonably neutral. Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. As of writing this comment, Special:Contributions/ZhangYongWang shows an account where all contributions to date are solely focused on deletion of this page. *sigh* I'm wondering if I upset another editor. NimbleToad (talk) 10:15, 12 January 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.