Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruptive 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive physician

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

dictionary definition for phrase coined in 2012. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This appears to be a fairly widely-used phrase that means a physician that is disruptive or obnoxious in any way. I see some references before 2012, so it was not coined in 2012.  Google indicates that it is fairly widely used in the medical industry to mean a physician that is a jerk and not a team player.  So, it is  a legti term.  But does it belong in Wiktionary instead?    Here is a source from 1997  that uses the term, and it is used steadily from then to the present; so not a neologism.     I'm seeing over 1,000 hits in Google Books alone, and it looks like it deserves more than a mere dictionary entry:  there is a large amount of literature on how to deal with disruptive physicians (treatment, management options, etc). --Noleander (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A mere dictionary definition. Otherwise we will need "Disruptive engineer," "Disruptive accountant," "Disruptive lawyer," "Disruptive wine steward," etc.Also occurrences in books may be merely the use of the term "disruptive physician behavior" rather than the deliberate employment of the coined term "disruptive physician." There is a difference.  Edison (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem sure what the books say. Please use the search links above to check such speculation as uninformed opinion adds little value to the discussion. Warden (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Noleander makes a convincing argument. If its commonly used in the medical industry, it deserves an article.  Or if someone creates a list of commonly used terms in the medical industry later on, it can be merged there, unless it grows large enough to stand on its own.   D r e a m Focus  19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Our policy WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent."  I have made a start on expanding this notable topic to help dispel this confusion. Warden (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (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.