Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Bruno


 * 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. Wizardman 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gene Bruno

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

Article appears to be created by the subject. At first glance appears notable, however on further inspection I can find little evidence to support notability in the Wikipedia sense. Article is currently sourced entirely from the subject's own writing, and I have been unable to locate independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. It is possible I am mistaken in this nomination, but would like to see the opinions of other Wikipedia editors. Leivick (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable Bio.--  Darth Mike   ( Talk  • Contribs ) 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Darth Mike RogueNinja talk  00:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Written like marketing/promotional material. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. JFW | T@lk  06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is, Dr. Bruno founded the first, non-profit scholarship fund for students of acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. The fund is call the Trudy McAlister Fund and is a donor fund of Triskeles Foundation (triskeles.org).
 * Do Not Delete per Dianablee  29 July 2008  I commented on the talk page regarding this article.  As a member of this field of medicine I am aware that the signigicant awards and history of Dr. Bruno are accurate.  I do not know who wrote the article, but I do know that several very notable accomplishments have been left out.  One one of them i will add.

I understand that Wikipedia has certain standars to adhere to in its evaluations of articles. I also find it odd that editors who do not know this field have such strong opinions about one of its leading professional. I looked at the interview articles in Acupuncture Today and find that several are interviews of Dr. Bruno by Acupuncture Today. I don't understand how it can be said that it is his own article when the major publication in the US seeks out one of the leading members of the field and interviews him.

I am also aware that Dr. Bruno is planning to retire next year and spend his professional time dedicated to the Trudy McAlister Scholarship fund for which he receives no compensation, so I do not see any motivation as implied above regarding self promotion.

Dianablee2 (talk)


 * Comment The fact that he's a generous person is irrelevant. We need independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Sources American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine  Exeutive Director-Rebekah Christiansen   866-455-7999

Editor of Acupuncture Today Marilyn Allen  [redacted]

Dr. Will Morris - Pres. of Austin Academy of Oriental Medicine

Dr. William Prensky  Founder of the National Acupuncture Assoc. and Founder of College of Oriental Medicine at Mercy College, NY  [redacted]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianablee2 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:RS which describes what a reliable source is. Wikipedia articles are not sourced from personal testimonies, but from written verifiable sources.  I also strongly suggest that you remove these phone numbers as they cannot be used to establish any kind of notability and there is a potential for misuse. --Leivick (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Daniel is right. We need published statements -- something in a big newspaper, for example.  Otherwise we have to assume that he's a private citizen who deserves our respect for his privacy, and not a public figure who wants the details of his life splashed all over the internet.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have redacted two of the phone numbers above, as one appeared to be incorrect and I was unable to verify the other. The other two are publicly available phone numbers irrelevant to this discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * &Comment. There is a possible path that could provide some evidence for notability. If a notable expert in the field publishes, even on a blog or other source that can be clearly identified with the expert, a review of the subject, which would show notability if more formally published, it could be considered source for notability; it would be a matter for editorial judgment if this were usable for this or not. Likewise a notable organization could publish something on an official web site. So, instead of the phone numbers (which were redacted out, properly), someone could contact one of the experts involved and request such publication. That would be better, even, than a phone call, because it would be widely verifiable. An email from the expert, if verifiable, could also suffice, but is even more of an "experimental" approach. Direct communication with experts, though, is what encyclopedias classically did in making editorial judgments. While there may not be time to arrange such in time for this article to survive AfD, AfD, we should remember, is only temporary, it is reversible at any time. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep I think this person just rests on the right side of notability. Just. I'm undecided. I do think, however, the article contains very much notworthmentioning junk that can be cleared out. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage by independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless independent verifiable sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2008 (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.