Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kim (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 Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

David Kim (physician)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable, vanity, COI, shall I go on? Doctors publish, that's part of what they do, that does not make this one notable. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly promotional. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, all about himself, completely sourced by him.PokeHomsar (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article written by the subject. Obvious self-promotion. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles cited seem to establish notability. With academics, one measure of notability is how many times their articles have been cited by others. "Biomechanical Comparison of a Single-Row Versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair" has been cited in 28 other articles. "Twisting and Braiding Reduces the Tensile Strength and Stiffness of Human Hamstring Tendon Grafts Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction" has been cited in 7 other articles. "Shoulder Injuries in Golf" has been cited by 4. (I am not sure if the number of citations for even the most-frequently cited article is enough in itself to establish notability) He does not seem to be a faculty member at a medical school, however, which argues against notability. The article appears to have been created by its subject, but it seems neutral enough. I would like to see discussion about notability, since conflict of interest is not in itself reason to delete an article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most physicians do not publish, or publishe just one or two articles during their training. hence he is more notable than most. DGG (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - He's published, but we generally don't consider scientific publications to be enough to make one notable. – ClockworkSoul 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable.  The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum  22:22, 7 March 2008 (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.