Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Elist


 * 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. ansh 666 17:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

James Elist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Near-certain autobiography. The subject's three cited papers were published in a predatory open access journal. The signature claim is backed entirely by reprints of an obvious press release (aka churnalism). Oh, and in case you thought it wasn't spam? Penis enlargement. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I would have said delete - but he does have articles about his innovative penis surgery in Huffington Post, Daily Mail, Cosmopolitan, mamamia and a few others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DAILYMAIL for why that's not an acceptable source. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable specialist and inventor in Penis augmentation with lasting coverage - e.g. 19951996 to 2016201620162018. International coverage - . While penis augmentation is perhaps not a field widely covered in scholarly sources, it is definitely covered in popular ones in a manner sufficient for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It could just be my native cynicism, but those all look like churnalism to me. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The GQ piece is a full length feature (with dedicated reporter+photographer - they even observed a surgery - so that piece is not churnalism).Icewhiz Heck, he's the only FDA approved (per recent sources) reasonable penile augmentation surgery out there But until Elist—an affable Iranian-born father of three with a mischievous, slightly goofy laugh—got FDA clearance for his implant in 2004, the only procedures available for growing a man’s manhood were temporary, or potentially damaging, or disgusting, or all three.. (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz, you would rely on GQ to learn about the history of medicine? Really? (real question).  See this review and this review and this review of the  history of penile implants. Elist's name is not mentioned in any of them.  And no, "his" device is not the only game in town. This list includes just  the 510Ks (the list is broader than implants but has them all); this list does not of course include PMAs or devices available in the EU under a CE mark.  Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, GQ is not a good source for medical history (I did not attempt to verify the veracity of this claim). However, a full feature in GQ (plus other such articles elsewhere) is an indication that this individual passes GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I'm no expert, but the coverage does appear to be... er, sizeable. Basie (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * delete blatant promotional page about a run of the mill doctor. Jeez oh man.  If somebody wants to try to write a decent article they can try; this is industrial waste that has been dumped in our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Believe has generated enough coverage to meet our General Notability Guidelines, as shown by a Google News search shown here . Additionally, definitely qualifies under Creative professionals, And Yes, I am taking an enlarged liberal interpretation of the category, (Yes PUN, intended}, of criteria #1 & 2, as shown here at Google Scholar .  ShoesssS Talk 14:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; this is promotionalism only on a nn individual. Sources offered at this AfD are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Plain and obvious promotional tract. Chisme (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I’m sorry to disagree here, but passing mentions do not typically have over a 800 cities in Google Scholar papers, as shown here,.
 * Delete - promotional. Single claim to fame is having a plastic surgery practice that offers a "customizable" penis implant. Article is entirely self-serving, for "the world's first subcutaneous penile implant for the treatment and cosmetic correction of soft tissue deformities" (obvious adspeak). -- LeflymanTalk 02:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources cover his "Penuma" product (which appears to be notable) in detail, but not the person himself. A redirect to Penuma can be created after the article is written. —  Newslinger  talk   09:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked at a couple of the most promising references.  USN&WR is a directory listing.  The HuffPost article looks reasonable, but it's not enough by itself, and anyway, it's about the device, not the person, so doesn't support a WP:BLP.  The rest of the sources are garbage.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (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.