Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Esrailian


 * 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Eric Esrailian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Ordinary doctor, with no evidence of notability. All of the references are links to pages which satisfy one or more of the following: not an independent source; gives only passing mention of Esrailian; does not mention Esrailian at all; quotes Esrailian about another topic, but does not deal primarily with him as subject matter. (PROD was removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He's quite a high-profile doctor. He's mentioned in newspapers due to his appointment by Arnold Schwarzenneger and also in connection with Farah Fawcett-Majors.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly notable for community efforts and medical positions. Chefcritic ((Talk) 0721, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Chefcritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep He probably passes WP:ACADEMIC for his numerous citations at Google Scholar and his many publications at PubMed. He is often quoted at Google News Archive, even on matters where he was not directly involved; apparently reporters consider him a go-to expert in his field. He is one of only eight physicians currently serving on the California Medical Board, a prestigious and powerful position (though not necessarily conveying automatic notability). I will add a few references that are not self-referential; that was a valid point by nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment JamesBWatson, I notice that you were the one who added the "autobiography" tag to the article. I believe I have cleaned up the article sufficiently (wikifying, deleting the irrelevant namedropping, etc.) that the tag could now be dropped. Please take a look and see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. Another view or 2 would be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close No problems with notability. This should have been closed, not relisted. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed several AfDs with multiple policy-justified Keep comments and no Deletes that this same admin has relisted. I hope he is equally eager to relist AfDs with similar numbers of Delete comments, but somehow my suspicion is no. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2011 (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.