Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moulton (medical practitioner)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

John Moulton (medical practitioner)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A doctor for a national sport team is not inherently notable. Receiving an OAM is also unremarkable. An article that needs to mention the subject's great grandfather is clearly struggling. Fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A doctor for a sporting team is sufficiently notable for there to be a category (Team physicians) bringing them to our notice. From 1986 until 1992 Moulton was the team doctor for the Wallabies during an historic winning streak. The single match of the 1991 Rugby World Cup Final itself receives an article in Wikipedia and every member of the team and the coach has a Wikipedia bio. The team photo of 1991 has every player, the coach, and Dr John Moulton, the team doctor, in it - he was part of a team. Receiving an OAM is sufficiently remarkable for there to be a category (Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia) bringing them to our notice. An article that mentions the subject's great grandfather is hardly remarkable. The Order of Australia recognises Australian citizens for achievement and meritorious service. If Australia, through its honours system, believes John Moulton is notable then I believe Wikipedia should also accept him as notable. Castlemate (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRIVCOVCurb Chain (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't do if "A,B,C" is in Wiki, then "X,Y,Z" should be too. Also, you can't cross-prioritize honors and recognitions, etc.  If the reasoning is that he had been the Doctor for "X" team, then absolute reasoning would lead us to recognizing any "Y" Doctor provided they won some award or supported some team.  There are no absolute similarities, and these cannot be used to support one another. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination: notability is not inherited Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, "notability is not inherited", and the inclusion of a forebear was not to suggest it is. Many articles record ancestors and in Moulton's case it was of interest only because his forebear was a founder of the school he attended. In any case I have removed his great grandfather and hopefully being the recipient of an Order of Australia honour will prove his notability. In the mean time I think one of us should call for the deletion of Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland because all he did was inherit. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Henry Percy was in fact a Member of Parliament ( whether he took his seat is another question) Porturology (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He inherited a seat but did not take it up. His contribution to the Dukedom was to plant a few trees. Sadly he didn't look after a dog shelter for twenty years and so didn't receive an MBE otherwise he may have been notable. Thoroughly likable chap who liked a good snort but hardly notable. Castlemate (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unremarkable per all the above.  medical professional needs to be outstanding to pass WP:GNGCurb Chain (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is it said that any one profession needs to be more outstandingly notable than any other? This comment shines a light on how subjective notability really is. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Medical professionals are not judged differently. They do not need to be outstanding to pass GNG, they just need to pass GNG. Jayant Patel is not outstanding (in the commen understanding of the term). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayant Patel is quite notable for an entirely different reason, and feel free to nominate him for deletion. Jayant Patel never received an OAM.  The 2 medical practitioners are not comparable and the OAM does not confer John Moulton any notability.Curb Chain (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Believe me from personal experience this was a very ordinary man Porturology (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for this offensive remark, made under the cowardly cover of a nom de plume, to be struck from the record? Castlemate (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with his comment.Curb Chain (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the offence but I apologise if offence is taken. I knew John well - he was an ordinary bloke who would be surprised to have an encyclopaedia article - he does not fit any WP criteria that I know of. Porturology (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the obvious personal attack this !vote is just not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology and I apologise for not assuming good faith but "very ordinary man" was not a respectful description of a man who through numerous honorary positions served his country with distinction. Many doctors love Rugby but how many of them become team doctor for the national team? The medical profession nominate medicos for Order of Australia honours with clinical precision but how many are actually awarded these medals. He might have been an "ordinary bloke" in the sense of a "good Aussie guy" but he was hardly "very ordinary". Sadly your contribution to this debate was little more than a vote and furthered the discussion in no way at all. Thank you again for your apology and if you are in NSW I hope you enjoy your long weekend. Castlemate (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Castlemate - thank you - there are a few points I'd like to make but they are probably better said on your talk page - I'll send a message to youPorturology (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I commented on the person who voted keep's talk page urging them to add newspaper, magazine and journal references to the article to establish notability as they might have access to sources I do not have. No such edits have been made to the article to establish notability. I've looked through Newsbank using a variety of keywords, looked through Google news and its archives, looked through Trove, the catalogue for the National Sports Information Centre, Google Books, Sport Discus and found no references to the subject.  If there are newspaper and magazine and journal references, I just cannot find them. I'm not convinced he passes WP:GNG and cannot see how he fits under WP:NSPORTS. --LauraHale (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO, "has received a well-known and significant award or honor". OAM fits that very definition, wether you want to call it unremarkable or not. Personal dislike of that award from the nominator does not change that. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling an OAM a "significant award" is an opinion. It's hardly a Nobel Prize. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling an OAM "unremarkable" is an opinion. Most awards are "hardly a Nobel Prize." duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Most awards are not awarded by the head of state. Most awards are not nationally announced by major national media organisations. Most awards do not confer post nominals that are internationally recognised. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, all OAM recipients and future recipients should have a wikipedia article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * yep duffbeerforme (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of whether OAM recipients are inherently notable should be discussed on a forum rather than on an individual AFD. If it was discussed my argument would be against for the following reasons:
 * 1. Number - there are over 30,000 Order of Australia recipients - 45,000 if you add the associated military, public service and police medals - about 1 in 500 adult Australians have a medal or higher honour
 * 2. Reasons for selection - the award is often given to retiring mid-level public servants or long term charity workers - if you have looked after the dog shelter in a country town for more than 20 years you are likely to get a medal - this is not disparaging the recipient but it does mean that they are not necessarily notable in a wikipedia sense.
 * 3. Method of selection - the inherent bias in the selection of recipients is included in Order of Australia. Further to this recipients are not chosen initially by a panel but are nominated to a panel by someone. This is open to abuse as serial nominating of family and friends is not unknown.
 * 4. Image in Australia - the Australian character/sense of humour means that many Australians take these awards fairly lightly and some argue they are elitist tosh which should not have been used to replace the imperial honours. For an example of this attitude to a different but related award see We can be Heroes.
 * 5. International comparisons - the Canadian, New Zealand and Imperial honours do not currently imply notability.
 * I do not think that receiving an OAM makes one inherently notable in the WP sense Porturology (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not taking a side on this particular debate, but OAMs are certainly not grounds for inherent notability. This has previously been discussed here, where I think the reasons are adequately explained and agreed upon. Frickeg (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both points of view are adequately discussed but there is no agreement. Castlemate (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that people who have an OAM would routinely pass WP:GNG? In this case, despite looking in a number of sources, including 199 newspapers on newsbank, Trove, the library at the National Sports Information Centre, my collection of books about rugby, the collection at the University of Canberra and Trove, I do not see evidence that this would be the case, at least for John Moulton. --LauraHale (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And in any case, there was actually agreement - all five participants in the discussion agreed that there was no automatic presumption of notability for OAMs. Frickeg (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page.  Stuartyeates (talk) 22:48, 5 October 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.