Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. David A. Gremse


 * 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   userfied to User:Nyuesagus/David Albert Gremse.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. David A. Gremse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominated for speedy A7, but was declined - the article touts notability. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find much for Dr. Gremse. Please also note the conflict of interest. I'll change my mind if somebody else's google fu is better than mine.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined the speedy as it didn't fit WP:CSD due to (strong) assertions of notability. I'm a bit ambivelant but recent improvements including a cite to what looks like a WP:RS that he's in Who's Who of America would seem that this is not a simple puff piece. I agree with the nominaor that there is a likely WP:COI but that, of course, is not a reason of itself to delete. Wether this does meet WP:N is another question but at time of writing it may well do so. Pedro : Chat  21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I regard the fact that "Who's Who" is mentioned in the page at all as a bit of a red flag. While not obviously a vanity outlet (like, say, American Biographical Institute), the standards for getting a listing there are pretty low. Most people in academia would be somewhat embarrassed to have a listing there or to advertise it if they did get one. Nsk92 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's a fair point and noting the other comments below this is a delete as failing WP:BIO and specifically WP:N Pedro : Chat  20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've reviewed the conversation between the primary editor (one user:Nyuesagus) and an admin. Seems that he had been bitten, and seems willing to show good faith.  As such, I'm definitely not opposed to a WP:USERFY, as was suggested to him by user:Mufka in his talk space. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Might pass WP:PROF but currently no supporting evidence that he is a celebrated paediatrician beyond other well-performing colleagues. JFW | T@lk  08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not especially notable. I'm in the medical field myself and I find his credentials very run-of-the-mill for an academic doctor. He is on the executive board of a national society, that's good as far as it goes. His writings at Google Scholar are pretty minimal, only two articles that are cited more than 10 times by others. If he's an influential figure in the field, he should have published scores of articles that are widely cited. The "Top Doctors" and such listings are not particularly distinguishing, and I agree with the others here about anyone who brags about being listed in "Who's Who" (which by the way is unverified; the reference given for that listing is to his own faculty web page at the university, in other words, self-referential). All in all he has a long way to go before he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. (BTW I have observed that almost all articles which include "Dr." as part of the article title turn out to be non-notable; Wikipedia style is not to include honorifics in the article title, just the name.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: looking in PubMed rather than Google Scholar, I find 45 articles with his name of them; that's better but not unusual, especially for a department head. (A department head is often cited as one of the authors on papers written by others within the department, even if the head had little to do with the actual research; that can really run up their publication count. I have no evidence this was the case for Dr. Gremse, however.). I was tempted to delete "widely published" from the lead sentence but decided to leave it and let the article be evaluated as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Absent any indication that this guy is notable. Codf1977 (talk)
 * Comment. I was unable to find independent sources to verify the claims in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (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.