Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Arnot (physician)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

David Arnot (physician)

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

Notability is not inherited - only claims to notability appear to be the patients he had. Melcous (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * David Arnot prescribed talismans for the use of the pregnant women, such as stones and belts, which may be of interest of historians of medicine and pregnancy.Unoquha (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * is there a source that says that makes some claim that he was specifically notable in doing this, rather than just giving him as an example of a practice, which seem to be what the article currently suggests? Melcous (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is well sourced and his affects on patients are notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Not calling this n/c as there is literally zero policy-based input Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, what he did was notable and his article has okay sources as well and plenty of them - 19 at last count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify what you mean by "what he did" that is notable? I'm open to withdrawing the nomination, but I'm looking for someone to clarify what notability criteria is met here - to me it still reads as "he lived, he had a profession and practiced it as people in his day did, and he once donated money to someone", all of which are pretty run of the mill. Melcous (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Despite a good field of references, I do not believe notability is established simply because he treated some notable patients. Where for example is evidence of wider contributions in his field, for example, academic writing, work with universities, recognition by government, development of new treatments or theories and so on. To put it another way, if this doctor were alive today but treated a similar number of minor gentry, would it be notable unless he had a wider impact on his field in Scotland? While I think this is a great piece of research, Notability is not established and the article cuts a fine line with WP:NOR. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. It gives me no pleasure to assert delete, and I'm sorry to the page creator who has made a good faith effort here. What we seem to be lacking is evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I did a WP:BEFORE myself; it's clear this fellow did exist and can be verified. However, I don't think sufficient sourcing has been presented that he was more highly regarded than any other working physician of the day. Because of the lack of policy-based assertions, as noted by one re-lister, I'd suggest the closer perform a soft delete so the page creator's work (including page history) is preserved when better sourcing is found and is so easily restored. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I did my best to find some sourcing for this article. But while there's this genealogical work calling him a "celebrated physician" the evidence presented there is that he treated thus and such and it was preserved in records. It doesn't quite add up to what I'd expect to see, e.g. a contemporaneous obituary calling him that. It feels like the reconstruction of a family tradition rather than a third party judgment. There's also a 1927 novel David Arnot by Michael Barrington about a Scottish physician that seems like it's maybe related, but I can't find a source to establish the connection. --Jahaza (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2022 (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.