Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Norman


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

James Norman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has poor-quality references (most of the links are broken) and the text is self-aggrandizing: I've read the previous AFD discussion, and at first I tried to fix this article, but it's clear that I can't do that without deleting more than half of it. It breaches the Wikipedia policy on at least three levels -- it looks and reads like an advertisement, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines for biographies because none of the secondary sources are impartial or reliable, and beyond that the sources are either primary or of poor quality. My search for better secondary sources turns up nothing but more material written by the man himself. In the two years since it was nominated for deletion, this article has hardly improved. Rhombus (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on calcium metabolism, parathyroid disease, and parathyroid surgery" -- by whom? How long has this sentence been here?
 * "Approximately 2,300 patients a year are operated on by Norman and his team at the Norman Parathyroid Center annually,[3] comprising 11% of all parathyroid operations performed in the United States annually and more than 10 times as many as any other institution worldwide.[4][5][6]" -- he authored two of the three references cited here himself, and the third one doesn't support the assertion.
 * "He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles in scientific medical journals, books and/or book chapters.[9] He is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons [10] and the American College of Endocrinology[11] and is a member of over a dozen medical societies." -- Lots of other physicians and academics are published and don't merit Wikipedia entries; I have been unable to independenty verify that he has indeed published 250 articles, and the fact that he is a member of the usual professional societies for his field has no bearing whatsoever on his notability.
 * "He has been chosen as one of “America’s Top Surgeons”[12] annually since 2003." -- This "America's Top Surgeons" award is given out by a for-profit professional services directory posing as a consumer organization.
 * "He was awarded US and foreign patents for the techniques of MIRP surgery.[16] He now holds six patents in several disciplines.[17][18][19]" -- So what? I know several people personally who have, between them, dozens of patents. Do they all deserve a Wikipedia entry?
 * Delete. This is utter WP:SPAM written by the doctor himself.  He thinks he's notable because he's a doctor who knows how to use the Internet??  LOLOL.  That is such a laughable claim that it makes you wonder how he ever managed to earn any degrees in anything.  No WP:RS at all available to establish any notability of any kind.  He's hoping that by writing about himself here, he can make a few more bucks while stroking his own ego.  That's what these WP:AUTO cases almost always boil down to.  At least he had the "integrity" to write his own article instead of paying some wiki-sock-farm hack to do it, which is what a lot of desperate doctors are doing these days. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Qworty. Where's the evidence that he wrote it himself? The article was created by "Markslatham", an apparently inactive user, so it looks more like sock-puppetry than "honest" Wikidoctoring. I suspect Rvflyboy is also a sock-puppet. --Rhombus (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Well, you've certainly given us a ringing endorsement for the article. Qworty (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I did a lot of ripping out to try to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP.  The article now carries absolutely zero significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources.  The one paragraph in the middle that might possibly make this a worthwhile Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced.  This guy probably would pass WP:PROF if sourcing could be found.    15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear keep. High cites of 1656, 887, 434, 305, 282, 232, 218, 211, 172,196.... albeit with large author numbers in a highly cited area in Google scholar gives a clear pass of WP:Prof. If somebody would find WoS citations this would be helpful. I find the prejudicial tone of some of the deletion arguments to be unWikipedian. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Web of Science with "AU=(Norman J*) AND (SH=(LIFE SCIENCES BIOMEDICINE) OR WC=(Multidisciplinary Sciences)) Refined by: Web of Science Categories=( SURGERY ) AND Document Types=( ARTICLE )" gets citation counts of 231, 178, 171, 171, 137, 112, 110, 108, 101... with an h-index of 35. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this info. It shows a very clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep. Zad68 has deleted the spam. Norman's papers are indeed cited by many other authors. In addition to the third party references, this is sufficient to keep the article. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I was unable to confirm the above highly-cited Google Scholar citations (there are a lot of people with names similar to James Norman). But these did seem to be definitely by the subject: this cited 304 times, this cited 231 times, this cited 143 times. The first two were abstracts of talks given at a meeting, rather than peer-reviewed articles, but their high number of citations would imply that their peers have accepted them. This is probably enough to qualify him as a leading expert in his very narrow field. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Dearth of independent, reliable sources (WP:N), even after the cleanup. And remember that Google Scholar "cite counts" are inflated (WP:Prof) and do not form a reliable basis for AfD decisions. As far as I can tell, this fails WP:PROF and otherwise fails WP:BIO. Show me the notability. czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Competent professional/great doctor doesn't equal notability.  And my searches have not shown notability.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable, the cornerstone of having a Wikipedia page for a living person.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (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.