Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Murphy (anaesthetist)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

James Murphy (anaesthetist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just doesn't seem to be a notable person. Corvus cornix talk  03:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He was in the news in both 2001 (after Houllier's operation) and due to the GMC hearing in 2007. By Googling his name, it is FAR easier to find sources that descibe the GMC trial in progress - very few report its outcome. It would be good to have a definitive, impartial account of what happened. Tommurphy86 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - publication record insufficient to make it a case of WP:ACADEMIC, presence in news cycle appear to be no more than WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any lasting effect to speak of.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other publications - I haven't been able to find them yet. There are around 4 or 5 in total, if that becomes a major factor in the decision-making. Bit mean to call for his deletion the day before the second anniversary of his death! 86.142.94.167 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — 86.142.94/167 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As for lasting effect of the news stories - his case will be used as a precedent in the future, in issues of patient safety, training and consent.86.142.94.167 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete—the basis for notability is involvement in two events with limited press coverage. In one, WP:Bare notability applies (being thanked by name is not sufficient to establish notability). In the other, facing the GMC, there was limited press coverage, and even if it was enough coverage to meet notability (and I don't believe it was), WP:ONEEVENT would apply. The fact that there was little press interest in the outcome, further supports the non-notability. The paucity of coverage does not justify the use of Wikipedia as a platform for the purpose of righting perceived wrongs.Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:NOTNEWS. If his case is used as a precedent in the future, it can be mentioned in the relevant article on patient safety or medical malpractice, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's sad that he died so young, but "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Qwfp (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything aboout merorialising anyone. If I had wanted to, I'd have ignored the GMC thing altogether, and focused on the Houllier story. Speaking of which, surely you all realise that the number of references I've provided isn't necessarily the total number of possible references out there? You seem to have honed straight in on the minute details without looking at the context.

Novangelis - you "don't believe" there was sufficient news coverage? This is a bit like the black raven logical fallacy. You haven't seen any, therefore it didn't exist? It was on national television news in a small country called the UK. But you don't believe it, so I guess it didn't happen. I don't understand why you're so determined to delete this page - I can't imagine what harm its presence does, or what good its deletion would do. But the sheer enthusiasm with which you've marched in with your emboldened 'Delete' demands suggest that this artcile has seriously offended you by daring to exist.

You've all (Corvus cornix, Novangelis and Qwfp) made your decision anyway, so I wouldn't want you to spend the next 7 dealing dealing with 'un-notable' people. I wonder how many people in your lives consider you to be notable? And thus, Wikipedia has suddenly become one page less comprehensive. Tommurphy86 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Tommurphy86 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Can't see any notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Being involved in an operation on someone notable doesn't make a doctor notable himself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless sourcing can be found to show that the doctor's involvement in the operation was notable outside of the fact of who the patient was, or that there is notability from other events, this appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and ultimately a case of a doctor doing his job. Simply being mentioned in the news in association with the procedure would not yield notability. -- Kinu t /c  09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be notable either via WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Google News provides nothing additional to the two events already mentioned in the article; namely, initial coverage of his General Medical Council hearing, and mention in connection with football manager's surgery. Reads like an obituary. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I note that the author of the piece is Tommurphy86. Mr. Murphy, I'm very sorry for your loss, and I'm sure your loved one (father?) was a fine person. Unfortunately that is not enough to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If it was we would all have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 24 January 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.