Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bradley (surgeon)


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

James Bradley (surgeon)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spamvert full of redlinks to non-notable topics ("coveted Silver Sow Award") and fluff calculated to make the guy look more important than he is. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree...his list of credentials sounds impressive on the outset, but at the same time, it's not out of line with many physicians. There are lots of NFL or NBA physicians. Most docs have published research or taught at a university. Bali88 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article states that "Bradley has published numerous peer reviewed articles for medical journals and medical textbook chapters." Problem is: I can't find any of them, and even if he did publish these articles, there is doubt to whether his works and achievements satisfy the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. Definitely a lot of puffery in the article to make him seem more important than he is. I didn't even know the NFL had a "Medical Research Peer Review Committee". Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete it does read like a promotion and that's a no-no.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanispamcruft. Searching for "James P. Bradley" on Web of Science I find quite a few publications (105, to be exact), but not all of these are probably his (the name is, of course, quite common). Even assuming for the sake of the argument that all of these publications are his, they don't make enough of an impact to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1 in a high-citation area like surgery (704 citations, h-index=14). I don't see any other evidence that he might meet WP:PROF or any other guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment You think it's fluffy now? . Now that's the way to write a promotional piece. JNW (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * reply - I stand amazed at the poofiness (like fluffiness, but with less substance and more sweetened hot air)! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. He's spent almost his entire career at Pitt. I've refined Randykitty's WoS search (query is AUTHOR: (bradley j*) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES=(SURGERY) AND ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED=(UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH) Timespan=All years. Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI) to eliminate false-positives, finding now only 25 publications with h-index 11 and around 300 total citations. I think this is borderline, but not quite enough because medicine is a fairly high citation-rate field. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment it looks like we have a newcomer to Wikipedia that is learning about policy and such. I'd support userfying this article to workspace of User:Damarisgomez while the new user learns the ropes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually support userfication in cases where the article subject has a reasonable potential to become acceptable in the future, as in WP:TOOSOON nominations. For example, in AfDs of an upcoming feature film or novel. Here, this subject is simply not notable for Wikipedia, and there isn't a significant probability for notability in the future. Also, the article is written in such a way that a total rewrite may be for the better. That said, I wholeheartedly thank the user for their attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and I urge them to keep contributing. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm sure he's a good surgeon, but he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2014 (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.