Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itzhak Brook


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Itzhak Brook

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:AUTOBIO - subsequent edits made by SPA whose other-article edits are all about inserting subject's work into references Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Although autobiographies are strongly discouraged, they are not forbidden. This is an article about a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. The decision to keep or delete should be based on the notability of the person, rather than shortcomings in how the article was written. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There is more involved in strongly discouraging something than merely saying it's strongly discourage. At the very least, it should flip the presumption of proof; the creation of an article is testimony that at least someone thinks the topic is important, but in the case of an autobio, that is mere self-importance. Just going off of the article, I don't see anything that unequivocally qualifies him by WP:PROF. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With GS h index somewhere around 50 he passes WP:prof clearly and also C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep based on Xxanthippe's analysis of WP:PROF. If the article is kept, I will edit to improve it stylistically. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. To add to Xxanthippe's findings, WoS shows h-index > 20 for a search restricted to papers in pediatrics. (If he has other papers, say in general medicine or allied areas, his citations might be higher.) Pediatrics are not one of the fashionable, high-citation areas of the biomedical sciences, so this seems like a pretty conspicuous pass of WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep, but warn author to be more circumspect in editing about himself, or citing his own work. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. The article seems proper whoever wrote it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Because we discourage WP:PROMO. User in an SPA, and the single purpose he has apparently set himself to is promoting himself and his work, adding reference to his work in other articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler, you linked to our policy on spam. Please think this through.  The subject of this article is a 70 year old professor at one of the most prestigious medical schools in the United States.  What goods or services is he allegedly spamming here?  His school only accepts about 3% of the students who apply.  He is not selling get-rich-quick schemes, phony weight loss products or the ""world's best pizza".  He's not the lead guitarist in a brand new rock band.  This article is not spam, and that guideline doesn't apply here. By the way, you haven't proved that Itzhak Brook himself is responsible for this article.  It could be one or more of his relatives. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen, you may wish to review WP:PROMO; it refers not just to selling product (although he did post a link to a sales page for his self-published autobiographical book, which I deleted), but also to "self-promotion", also mentioned as "personal promotion". No, I haven't proven that "Dribrook" is that Dr. I. Brook, but the user's identification as that in their efforts to post about a Dr. I. Brook and post his work as reference in multiple articles makes it clear that the name is supposed to suggest that it is. The user has been cautioned about autobio in multiple locations, and has certainly not posted any contradiction to the claim. (As for his being a professor, while that was his claim, another editor clarified it as his being an adjunct professor, not the full-time or permanent position one normally associates with that term.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nat, the topic is notable, the article as it now stands is in pretty decent shape, and the solution to any shortcomings in the article is improvement through the normal editing process, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that neither WP:PROMO nor WP:AUTOBIO are valid reasons for deletion. Instead, the solution to such problems when dealing with an article about a notable topic is to edit the article to eliminate such problems. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing the question of whether this is WP:AUTOBIO, here the user indicates that he is the author of the blogs that have belong to the article's subject, so either its autobio or we're dealing with a fundamentally dishonest editor whose inclusions are not to be trusted. As for the article being in pretty decent shape, it has significant chunks that are unsourced, and has no criticism of the subject. Is there criticism to be had of Dr. Brook? I don't know, but I don't expect we'll find it when we allow him to be the one to build the article. I think we should concur with guidelines and strongly discourage autobio, rather than encouraging it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that further discussion of these issues should take place on the article's talk page if the article is kept, and that the shortcomings you see in the article should be addressed through normal editing. He does not own the article, you know.Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 9 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.