Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Anna Frisch


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Anna Frisch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF, many MDs have listed professorships due to residency programs. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article fails to support claim of "World Renown" (sic). No independent sources. Just a promotional bio; for me, this is borderline WP:G11. – Wdchk (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Since my original comment, I acknowledge significant good-faith efforts made to provide a referenced list of publications, and edits made to reduce the promotional tone. However, notability depends on significant attention from independent secondary sources, and these I still do not see. A list of publications, no matter how long, does not make up for a lack of secondary sources. So, despite the improvements, I have not changed my opinion . – Wdchk (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Info" I am not sure if i am adding this in the correct area. We are still currently updating the page for Dr Anna Frisch to reflect her elite status in the field of Endocrinology.  --Xmxpro1 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome to contribute to the discussion here. I encourage you to read Identifying reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A list of scholarly articles written by the article's subject does not, in itself, provide enough information to determine the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A promotionally-written article with its main editor, Xmxpro1, reverting any attempt to make it less promotional. From the citation record, the subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF. The only nontrivial source given is a local story about a medical patient who happens to have been treated by Frisch; there is no nontrivial coverage in it of Frisch herself, so no reason to believe she passes WP:GNG independently of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to suggest anything else than an actively practicing clinician with a research interest. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources not there. A GS h-index of at most 4 is nowhere sufficient to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. No proof for the claimed super status. MDs are not inherently notable. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — 66.168.160.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I also haven't edited the article. Plus, I have no interest in this person. And I have edits outside of this deletion discussion (now). Please drop your SPA charge. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
 * He seems to be rolling through AfDs just !voting keep. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sure, it reads like a resume. But put a "refs needed" tag on it for a year. She might do something notable and then someone will end up having to rewrite all that all over. Plus I do not believe a male with an article with that much detail would be considered for deletion. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, from you comment I am not sure you understand how wikipedia works. Which stamenents in the article about person's notable achievements need a ref? I will gladly search the confirmations despite the sexism canard you are trying to load on all us. You aslo may request transferring the article in your user space "for a year" and reapply when the person "do something notable" to match wikipedia requirements. As for "male with an article", before accusing 80% of wikipedians of sexism, try get your facts straight by checking how many male articles are deleted every day. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete When I cleaned various WP:PEACOCK stuff, the bio became a rather nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - Are you kidding me?!?!? A researcher whose work could likely (and probably is) cited in other WP articles regarding health subjects and people want to delete it because the article needs cleanup..! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see the article at all? The cleanup is done already. And what is left does not show the reason for your EXCITEMENT. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and it still needs cleaning up and references. I have the same standpoint for keeping this article as I do for keeping articles on minor or not well known publications, its documentation of potential sources. Why, as an encyclopedia, would we want to get rid of this kind of article? It would be nice if we could get someone knowledgeable about the medical research community to comment. Granted I'm not familiar with the field, but this person's work seems to give her relative notability within it. Side note: this article needs to be moved to Anna Frisch, article names should not include titles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete When even people !voting keep say maybe she'll do something notable, you know that there's a problem. Without evidence that this person even meets GNG keeping it isn't justified. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Promotional? I'm sure The American Journal of the Medical Sciences checked her research before they decided to print it, and saying that they printed it is a fact not promotion. (I've cleaned up the first reference and the first of the "Publications" but there are a lot of style conventions being broken such as capitals and something weird going on with square brackets in the infobox, but the subject of the article, Dr. Frisch, is notable and the article should still be kept.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That journal, and all other medical and academic journals, print dozens, hundreds, thousands of articles. One publication in such a journal does not make for notability--and note that it's three pages long and has a bunch of co-authors. There are claims that her research is the first to do something, but those claims are unverified. Everything else is a normal part of the job. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was written in promotional style when posted for deletion. Now it is cleaned from WP:PEACOCK. But not notable per wikipedia standards either. There are millions of people with lots of publications. But they are mostly rank-and-file researchers. wikipedia is not a "Who is Who". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's one thing to nominate for deletion, it's entirely another to campaign for it. Is there something else to this, do you have some perspective that we are missing? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't like accusations in misogyny and hints about ulterior motives. Just the same, I am nominating for deletion of various nonnotable software and don't whine when white young male geek-oriented majority forces these worthless articles to be kept. I don't run around AFD accusing them being white young male geek-oriented; I let the majority rule. I don't forum shop either, unlike what I see happening here. Good luck with your wikifeminist activism, but back off with your personal accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. There is nothing wrong with "campaigning" neither against, nor for, unless it involves personal accusations. Also, an occasional civilized exchange of arguments is not called "campaigning", unless you are seeking to smear your opponent. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * You're reading way too much into this, I simply asked if you knew something about this person that the rest of us do not. The Editor who nominated this article did so and hasn't been heard from again, you've been responding to various comments and are seemingly adamant about its deletion. Furthermore, alot has been fixed in the article and there's just barely been effort started to research this person and expand it again. So I'll ask again, what makes Frisch so worthy of this kind of attention? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not aware I had to respond to every comment for articles I submit to AfD. It looks more like a CV/resume now than when first nominated.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  19:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries Loriendrew, you don't. What you did was perfectly fine and there was no need to comment further unless you want to. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 22:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My impression is that responding to every comment is usually counterproductive. As Scalhotrod says, it's definitely not something you're expected to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ∀ There is, however, WP:CANVAS.  Knee-jerk keeps are no better than knee-jerk deletes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Delete No indication of notability. A practicing physician like tens of thousands of others.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepThis physician has changed the way thyroid is treated. Most of the direct links we cannot put down on paper as it violets HIPPA.  I agree that 1 person here seems to have a hard on for wanting to delete.  Yes there are many doctors and many great ones. The articles and publication which are listed are high ranking in the research world.  Not every publication is weighted the same. This physician is held to a different level by her peers due to research and treatment of thyroid related disorders.  Most high ranking people don't go and see the average "Jo". I stand by this doctor and vote to keep this page. If she was there in a bikini my guess is some of you would be looking past the grammar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmxpro1 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)  — Xmxpro1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Raw information about patients, the kind of information that might violate HIPAA, sounds to me like it would constitute a primary source. These are not particularly useful anyway, in the absence of secondary sources. We are not in the business of interpreting primary sources. Regarding your statements: "This physician has changed the way thyroid is treated," and "This physician is held to a different level by her peers ...", this is exactly what we're looking for: reliable, third-party, secondary sources that confirm these statements. With respect, all this talk of bikinis and the possible motivation of contributors to this discussion is irrelevant. The article's current formatting and grammar are also irrelevant. We are trying to establish one thing – the subject's notability. – Wdchk (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence has been furnished that her academic papers are highly cited per WP:PROF. The news media attention to a chance thyroid cancer diagnosis focused on the patient, mentioning her only in passing. If strong evidence is furnished by an editor with medical experience that her papers are highly cited, I will reconsider. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Crappy writing does not equal deletion grounds, needs improvement not demolition.   Passes GNG based on significant publication in third-party sources.  Definitely more notable than Lawnchair Larry or a bunch of one-season cricket players from Sri Lanka.  Montanabw (talk)  16:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what "significant publication" you have in mind. I don't see anything beyond average scholar. Also, from your last sentence it seems you are confusing the concepts of "notability" and "importance for humankind". Wikipedia does not judge the latter. Also, nobody here says that it should be deleted because of crappy writing; this is mentioned several times already. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This doctors page seems to be trying to show the notability of the dr and this far is going a "ok" job. Grammar aside, this is a strong keep for me. The video someone makes reference shows that this doctor is the only doctor who found this rare cancer which in fact saves the patients life. My research of this type if cancer is that there has been only 10 reported cases. Also reading additional online articles this dr has a strong following nationally as well as overseas and is sought after in her field. We need more experts like her to set an example of quality care and research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csforensics (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)  — Csforensics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I fail to see why is that doctors are supposed to be more deserving than farmers. After all, with nothing to eat there will be no population with rare diseases for doctors' glory to grow. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is being unfairly treated and ripped to shreds. I have searched other doctors with lower research and qualifications and they are no where as documented as this page. Example It really makes me wonder the motives behind the attention and hell I (editor) have been put through on every whim and requests. Staszek Lem your comments are uncalled for. You are the type to be the first one to cry when your sick. Go ask a farmer for help. It is not a matter of "deserving" but a matter of respect and notoriety of the deserving. What is good for some on Wikipedia should be good for all. This page is being cherry picked for bashing and highly qualified and skilled doctor. If you don't like doctors who change the way others practice medicine then go troll other pages where your worthless comments will be appreciated. Xmxpro1 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't go to doctor when you are starving, right? Good luck with your tireless promotional push. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No keep vote explains how she meets WP:PROF. She has some academic publications out, but that's not enough - we would need to show they are extremely numerous, popular or well received. I'll ping User:Randykitty, maybe he can calculate the h-index; as she has no created a Google Scholar profile I don't know what other tool can provide automated stats for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely non-notable. Publications listed in the article seem to be all there is, not a selection. I used the Web of Science to evaluate her citation record. as "A. Kropiwnicka", WoS lists 13 publications, most of them meeting abstracts. Only two have ever been cited (h=2), one a respectable 122 times (Watala et al. 2004), but she's only a minor author on that one, the other just 15 times (Malecka-Panas et al 2002) and she's a minor author on that one, too. "Anna Frisch" renders 5 hits, three of them cited (the other two are meeting abstracts). Combined with previous, h=4, total cites 188. This is miles below what we usually take as evidence for notability here. Given that she's a practicing physician and only an adjunct assistant professor, this is about what I would expect. Listed awards are minor/negligible. Unless somebody comes up with evidence that she passes GNG, there's no chance she'll pass ACADEMIC anytime soon. PS: Xmxpro1, you're right that James Andrews does not pass ACADEMIC either, but he's a clear pass of GNG. Apart from that, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a great c.v., but we are not a webhost. I'm sympathetic to keeping the article, but I'd like to see actual work rescuing this article and cutting out the cruft and unsourced BLP violations.  Many of the claims are so over the top, that I'd expect she'd surely have more media attention. If it's not fixed quickly, it probably will be deleted. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2014 (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.