Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Oppenheim


 * 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   no consensus. I have given the arguments be single purpose accounts, which did not make arguments based on the notability guidelines very little weight. This leads me to close this as no consensus, as there is still disagreement over whether it meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Oppenheim

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable physician/politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Article not supported by secondary sources.  ttonyb (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known through out New York and famous neurosurgeon. Recognized mayor throughout various areas.Very notable and should be kept on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)  — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – The article fails to provide support for the statements you have made here. Without adequate secondary sources the article fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion.   ttonyb  (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – I beg to differ the article thoroughly supports the statements that I have previously made and has secondary sources for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria.  Spinoloricus (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Per the criteria, the secondary sources have to be "non-trivial". The articles you have added are not about the subject of the article and only mention him briefly.  Again, the article fails to provide adequate secondary sources to support the article.   ttonyb  (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, he's been elected mayor, even aside from any neurological notability. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."  Again, the article fails to demonstrate Wikipedia based notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" perhaps Dr. Oppenheim needs to site what notable achievements he has done for the medical industry, ie articles,lectures.... As a Neurosurgeon in the North East, he is quite notable. Google should not be "the end all be all" to decide if a person is notable. Sorry Google. Vschwaid (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Vschwaid (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I could find no justification for this person's notability outside of his own "small pond". He has a few articles at Google Scholar, not enough or widely enough cited to meet WP:SCHOLAR. He has been mayor of a village of fewer than 4000 people, not enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. He has served on some boards of directors and some hospital boards; so have thousands of others, that does not confer notability. Google News provides one item from the New York Times, a 1992 wedding announcement; otherwise all hits are from a local paper, The Journal News, which seems way too local to establish genuine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – You have not provided any justification for including the article. Just because he is a Neurosurgeon does not make him notable via Wikipedia.    Please advise how he meets the notability criteria listed above.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have not said anything about using Google as your only source to see if someone is worthy of Wikipedia. Spinoloricus (talk) 1:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Coment – What if he were to add medical achievements (articles, lectures...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)  — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Articles and lectures won't cut it. Thousands of people write articles and give lectures. Please understand, the process here is not about evaluating Dr. Oppenheim's worth as a physician or his contributions to the community. I'm sure those are valuable. But to be included in Wikipedia a subject has to be "notable," as defined at WP:N and/or WP:BIO and/or WP:ACADEMIC; the gist of those requirements is that there have to be outside, independent sources STATING that the person is notable, or writing substantive articles ABOUT him, or citing his papers in a way that demonstrates that he is a thought leader in his field. I'm sorry if this seems strict, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. There have to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise it would be overwhelmed by articles about subjects that are not really encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N states that someone has to be "worthy of notice" and Jeffrey Oppenheim is very "worthy of notice" he has pretty much fixed the town he is mayor of and he had the first case of a spinal cord bypass that facilitated partial recovery from a spinal cord transection, using a peripheral nerve transfer. If that does not make him "worthy of notice I don't know what will.  Spinoloricus (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – "Worthy of notice" means that someone other than the author of the article or a Wikipedia editor has noticed the subject of the article. Specifically, it means the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."   ttonyb  (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep MelanieN has written a page about a director of the San Diego Zoo from 70 years ago who has no distinctions and a cartoonist, minimally published, who no one has even heard of. The advocates of deletion don’t seem to mind posting their articles even when they are about far less notable persons. Here, there is certainly no reason that this individual is less notable than the people that Melanie has written about.  Newspaperwriter10021  (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Newspaperwriter10021 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits.  The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted.   ttonyb  (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Newspaperwriter10021 is right I checked with the two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Spinoloricus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits.  The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted.   ttonyb  (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tony. I stand behind the articles I have written, but they are irrelevant. Newspaperwriter and/or Spinoloricus, you should read the section Arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. "Look at this other article" is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "I never heard of it" is irrelevant per WP:IDONTKNOWIT. If you can't come up with some REAL arguments based on WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCE criteria, this article is likely to go. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - as a politican, he is laughably non-notable, but reviewing the publications by him as a physician, he might be so. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 5 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.