Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Lederman


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Gil Lederman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article makes some bold claims that aren't sourced. Googling only produced self-published material. I suspect it is an auto-biography because the user who wrote also uploaded the image, which the subject uses as a publicity shot. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment A little more googling has revealed him to be much more notable than the article previously revealed. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment I removed the jumble of deletion tags (the article had G7 and BLP-PROD tags in addition to AfD), and I've been working on this article for a while. I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC; his publications are few, old, and not widely cited. However, he may be WP:GNG notable, or rather notorious. Virtually all of his publicity is bad. He has gotten a ton of press coverage over legal issues, including a highly-publicized lawsuit from the widow of George Harrison, and a federal lawsuit alleging Medicare fraud. It appears that his treatment methods have been controversial, although I couldn't find significant Reliable Source criticism of his methods. And there are hints that he was forced out at SIUH, but again no confirmation. I could find almost no biographical information. Overall I would say Delete. I think there would be a BLP risk if we write an honest article, and a charge of whitewashing if we leave out all the bad stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably keep The legal issues and the privacy issues were very well publicized and it should be possible to find more references.  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable as a physician per the usual criteria (being a leader in the field). MelanieN's comments about whitewashing vs BLP risk seem important. BakerStMD T&#124;C 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Haminoon, have you found enough information for him to be notable according to the rules? Do you still think the entr should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its borderline. I'd rather leave it to more experienced editors than myself to decide. --  haminoon  ( talk ) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Primarily negative information; tho it's more than one event, none of them are of encyclopedic importance.  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (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.