Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian De Silva


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Julian De Silva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He's a plastic surgeon. Does WP keep pages on random physicians? Kellymoat (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

He's notable for a number of reasons - and a number of these are included in the article - as well as being someone who contributes to the UK's national discourse. Apart from his contributions to medical science - through numerous papers on subjects as diverse as glaucoma and orbital fractures - he also has a significant public profile. Please let me know what further supporting evidence you require. Suburb 77 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins, please note - Suburb 77 is the sole contributor to the page. Kellymoat (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is relevant whether or not I'm the sole contributor on such a new page. What is relevant is the contribution of the subject to the national discourse. We have a right to understand who the voices in our national conversation belong to - and their qualifications for being part of that conversation. Suburb 77 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct, being major contributor to a new page isn't a bad thing. But admins like to know things like that. They also like to know that this one article is responsible for over 20% of your total edits. As well as the number of edits you've made adding this name to other pages. It could be due to a conflict of interest. They like to know these things.Kellymoat (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm not sure where you got that stat from, but I've been editing and contributing to Wiki for more than seven years, so it's unlikely that figure is correct. The only pages I have added his name to have been those required for categorisation, eg alumni, former pupil of etc. Suburb 77 (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: highly unreliable sources: I see oodles of links to the Sun, the Daily mail etc, making the bulk of the references. Note that those are nearly worthless as sources for encyclopaedic purposes. See for instance WP:PUS. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. References have been updated and include a wide variety of sources. However, I have to point out that - if you are going to make an issue of references that cite The Daily Mail and The Sun - a significant percentage of pages on UK subjects would have to be removed. Suburb 77 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is incorrect, exactly? There are oodles of links to those sources, and they aren't suitable sources, per policy, as pointed out -- it's not just me making an issue of it. Also note that WP:BLP requires especially reliable sources. As for the rest, I have not expressed an opinion regarding whether this article should be deleted.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Less than half of the references on the page are to The Daily Mail and The Sun. As I mentioned, these support my case that this person is part of the national conversation. They also support the fact that he is notable. The relevant medical and scientific evidence is referenced using appropriate sources. Suburb 77 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The assertion that he is non-notable is incorrect. Quite apart from his research work, if, as the previous comment suggests, there is lots of coverage of him at a national level, then he can't be "non-notable". Suburb 77 (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tabloid notability is not encyclopaedic notability. What is presented of his research does not pass WP:PROF either. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * comment - it is hard to manage celebrity doctor articles like this. The guy does pseudoscience and relies on polling to make judgements about how pretty famous women are and "why", and gets lots of press from trashy media.  It is pretty disgusting.    I would just as soon see this deleted but that is all I will say.  Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * actually, delete First, it would take WP:TNT to create a decent WP article for this person; the current "page" is not a WP article but a bunch of tabloid content about his "scientific" commentary on female beauty.    The actual substance here is WP:FRINGE science that nobody bothers to refute, and the passing mentions in a bunch of poor-quality sources just doesn't add up to notability.... or at best barely does.  If this kept, the obvious promotional pressure that article is under (note the SPA WP:BLUDGEONing here)  means this will be a drain on community resources to maintain whatever neutrality we can manage to attain.  And that pushes even the marginal GNG argument over to delete.   So delete. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (redacted; thanks for pointing out my mistake Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Suburb 77 clearly does not meet the criteria for WP:SPA, so far as I can see. (redacted, as we now agree on that point) I agree with the other points, more or less (he also appears to have some more serious research activity, but whatever tabloid notability he has is not predicated on that, and it falls way short of WP:PROF).  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per points made above by myself and others, and unsatisfactory counterpoints to same. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Honestly, the problem is not that sources are the Sun of the Daily Mail; the problem is that they are from the trashy, clickbait sections of those newspapers. Those sections are larger than in more respectable news outlets, sure, but I could point to a large number of articles published by the New York Times or The Guardian websites that are equally worthless to cite. This is a Telegraph article, and even in the "news" section, and nonetheless clickbait at its finest. Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:28, 16 December 2016 (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.