Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Turner


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Turner

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

Fails WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ACADEMIC. I have found no evidence that this doctor has received any national notability in his field. His publications do not appear to have been cited elsewhere (and therefore have not made a significant impact in his field), and his society membership is non-notable as the "Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons" is (by their own admission) freely open to all surgeons of any skill level. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.251.1.11 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I agree; vanity piece for someone with no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. If he does become notable, however, Restore. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick Keep This guy has multiple national publications since 1980 that span multiple peer review journals. Just his one article on laparoscopic entry is refernced by 13 different papers that google could find, and that's not his best work.  You can google any of his publications and verify this. GOOGLE PAGE SHOWING ALL CITING HIM  He is widely recognized by his peers as a leader in minimally invasive surgery, and anyone with a web browser can figure this out very quickly.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe my browser doesn't work so well. It does show me that the paper you refer to has a main author by the name of Dr. Feste (these names were left out of the original citation--I have edited the article to reflect this information, in the interest of full disclosure) and that the second paper (which I take it is his better work?), for which Dr. Duncan J. Turner is the sole author, shows no citations at all: a Google page. So this notability still is not established as far as I'm concerned, since Turner at the least will have to share the honor with Feste for the one article, and I can find no further references. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The scholar.google.com is a tool that I'm not familiar with. Clearly this doctor HAS had some influence on his fellow doctors.  That's the great thing about these AfD debates -- new information comes to light that can bolster notability that hasn't been established in the article itself.  Now, perhaps if the anon IP editor could update the article to include the necessary references, the article will stand better.  For now, I'll change my assessment to Weak Keep.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is a stub at best anyway. Perhaps if it was expanded to explain the notability if any notability exists then it would be worth keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ok, I added a bunch of his notable society memberships, including some that have rigid requirements. Also added another of his publications.  Forty years in obstetrics, all these publications and memberships, come on guys! Khollow (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about his memberships, but the revised article seems to suffer from a slight exaggeration: he has published THREE papers, and was the first author on only ONE, yet you added that "he is widely published"? He is NOT, especially not in the medical business. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Mgm below, fellowship of the Royal Society of Medicine may just pass WP:ACADEMIC, depending on your definition of "highly selective" and "major".  Still, WP:ACADEMIC requires reliable sources to document this, so they need to be added. Delete A handful of published papers don't make someone notable (nearly every doctor has these).  I can't see where he passes any of our notability guidelines.  And I can't find information about him published in RS, so there's nothing to write an article with.  Duncan Turner the sex attacker seems more notable. Phil153 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Phil153 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not qualify the notability guidelines. Just being in societies and publishing something doesn't make someone notable. Then I can get an article too.  C h a m a l  talk 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC criterion 3: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)". Since he's a fellow of at least two such organizations, he meets the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know that any of the "fellowships" listed fall under the category of "elected and a highly selective honor". Basically, most doctors are fellows of some society or another, which means that they have taken a qualification exam in their field of specialty.  And the The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons is, by their own website's admission, open to anyone willing to join with no special qualifications at all other than being a practicing surgeon. However, Dr. Turner's publications DO seem to be reltatively notable.  I'm concerned that the same author has introduced articles on MANY members of The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons in what I feel is a promotional campaign.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nobody here is claiming that membership of the Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 3, but fellowship of the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians certainly does. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to this, Fellowship in the RSM is "Available to those who hold a medical, dental or veterinary qualification; or who have higher scientific qualifications – and also those holding senior positions within the healthcare sector." Basically, the RSM is the British equivalent of the AMA -- become a doctor, pay a membership fee and you're in.  According to this, fellowship in the RCP is available to any doctor willing to fork over ₤485 per year.  These are NOT the same as IEEE fellowships, that are ELECTED and highly selective.  They are simply membership levels.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I stand corrected about the RSM (I should have known not to treat their Wikipedia article as a reliable source!), but fellowship of the RCP is by election . The page that you linked says nothing at all like "fellowship in the RCP is available to any doctor willing to fork over ₤485 per year" - it simply says what the cost is for those who have been elected. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Now its MY turn to stand corrected. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:51, 14 January 2009 (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.