Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack P. Gunter


 * 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. It appears that there is an internet war going on, with an agency hired to defend Dr Gunter and a disgruntled customer using attack sites to attack him. Wikipedia should not be part of this battle: in these circumstances I think it unlikely that we can achieve a stable and balanced article and per WP:BLP it is better not to have one. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack P. Gunter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am unable to find significant third-party coverage of this person. The article was written by a user representing a company which sells "Internet marketing and public relations services for elective healthcare providers." The article is likely an attempt at damage control in the wake of this (which incidentally is the only usable source I have found on Gunter). Haakon (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Rosemontmedia is, in fact, hired by Gunter. In from this month, they are listed as his "Media Contact". Haakon (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess there are a number of options. If his only notability is wrt nosejobsgonebad than he should be redirect to the article about Rating sites.  Nosejobgonebad could go here along with RateMD and many others. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If the only independent source is one angry customer with a nose job complication, then the page should be deleted in order to comply with WP:ATTACK. Actually, I think unless nosejobsgonebad is balanced with other sources, it shouldn't even be included. If enough reliable third-party sources exist to support an article, then there would be something worth keeping. At this stage, the problem is a lack of good sources. If Rosemont Media can come up with enough good sources for an article, then that's great. If all they are going to do is put up a resume, then they've come to the wrong place and the article can just be deleted. I've added a few good sources below. Anyone else is welcome to add more. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like a subtle attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete per WP:BIO. THF (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This page should not stay up in this current state. This is not a good representation for a biography of a living person in Wikipedia. He is an educator and has authored numerous books and articles contributing to the field of rhinoplasty. The Revision as of 18:21, 23 February 2010 is a better representation of his contributions to plastic & reconstructive surgery.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.240.2 (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other sources

 * (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
 * (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
 * (can't see very much of this book through snippet view at google books)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.