Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Summerfield

Derek Summerfield was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

The man is hardly notable outside his editorialising, which he does in a medical journal - not as an editor but by offering personal views. There appear to be few contributions to medicine. JFW | T@lk  04:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A look on Pubmed (here) reveals that almost half his scientific output carries POV titles, while he is otherwise mainly into mental health of refugees and PTSS. JFW | T@lk


 * Del.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable precisely for his editorializing. Wikipedia is NPOV, but that doesn't mean the people we write about have to be neutral themselves. Wolfman 06:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and he's pretty fringe. Just because he can bully the BMJ's editors into printing his rather one-sided rants should this man now become a Wikipedia article? JFW | T@lk  10:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of this guy outside of this article. But then, I don't follow the Israel/Palestine debate very closely. Why do you say he "bullies".  And why do you call his writings "rants"?  If he's really a complete crank, I would consider changing my vote. Have you got any references to back up that view?  Is BMJ not a serious academic journal, or is it more of a trade journal?  Lastly, if he is a complete crank, but one who actually publishes in mainstream outlets, wouldn't we be providing a service by having an article about him?  After all, readers may wish to know that he's a fringe bully ranter rather than a scholar, and wikipedia can present evidence to that effect in a nice NPOV manner. Wolfman 15:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - even complete cranks can be notable, Wolfman has good points, but if convinced of his non-notability (a burden on those advocating deletion), then I would vote delete. Niceguyjoey 15:39, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems that an encyclopedic article can be constructed about this person. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  15:46, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Eh, Keep. I'd say non-notable, but it does say he's and "honorary senior lecturer" somewhere. Really need more info. -- Scott Burley 04:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; senior academics are notable by default. But expand a bit; he's surely done something else in his life... - Mustafaa 12:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - his only notability is lecturing at an institute and an editorial? - delete - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Does not apear notable.  &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  21:50, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
 * weak keep This information, partially spun off of Israeli violence against Palestinian children belongs somewhere where it can be correctly presented as editorial. Cool Hand Luke  05:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.