Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Masson


 * 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. StarM 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Masson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy, a résumé-like puff piece. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for suggestion - resume form not correct - sorry, newbie. Webwinnow (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see why this person is notable. As such, delete as per WP:NOTE. ThePointblank (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit/Revise Notable biographical entry about a female physician who has attained the highest leadership roles possible in a field still predominately occluded by the proverbial male “glass ceiling.” Gifted female role models in the upper echelons of the managerial hierarchy of the medical field are atypical and exceptional. Webwinnow (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still fails WP:PEOPLE. Read the basic criteria section. ThePointblank (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed for reason pointed out by ThePointblank. McA (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for references, ThePointblank. Still learning. From WP:PEOPLE "Within Wikipedia ... (t)he topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular' – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Pursuing first attempt based on "worthy of notice" though not necessarily "famous" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwinnow (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone please be more specific about why they consider all the positions she's had not notable? - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mgm, for pointing out "all the positions" ... from WP:NOTE "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."Webwinnow (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources on notability, written like an advert, fails WP:PEOPLEBali ultimate (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewritten. Citations/sources added.Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--after spending some time on this article, I'm convinced that it's fluff, since there's no notability and the author has tried to spice it up as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Belated and sincere thank you for the effort you put in ... have learned a lot from your edits and it is much appreciated. Would you revisit the hopefully improving version? Webwinnow (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: it seems to me that the author is a member of the Masson family--see their other contributions. So let's add COI to the problems. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: interested in biographies of strong women and interesting men. Would like to work on Corita Kent; DJ Hall (the artist, not the football player); Erik Lindgren; Dean Joan Shaeffer (Academic Dean): but, will I survive this? Disheartening. Webwinnow (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete couldn't find anything that confirmed the info, she has had some nice positions, and those might qualify her, but not if we can't verify it. I did notice she went back to school and got an MBA lately, which I found odd for someone with two BSs, an MA, and a PHD.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a ray of hope in your remark, and I agree, the positions alone or en masse are compelling. Avidly continuing to pursue the verification process. RE: MBA - don't know why: speculation suggests adds substantively to administrative success. Webwinnow (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of minor local notability only. JFW | T@lk  06:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional and insufficiently notable. head of a county medical society is not enough--of a state, perhaps. "Assistant Clinical Professor" is similarly not a rather unimportant rank.DGG (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Many grains of sand make a beach." - Old Chinese Proverb Webwinnow (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO.  Dloh  cierekim  03:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adds to Wikipedia's knowledge base- need more women physiciansYamiSorceress (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * COmment no prior edits.  Dloh  cierekim  01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was just about to comment the same using . This user's first edit was to this page—an unlikely choice. It's of little import though, as the reasoning is empty. Wikipedia's goal is not normative, but informative. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Normative or informative, YamiSorceress makes a valid point: female physicians are noticeably underrepresented in W. The remark inspired a bit of rough research. List of physicians includes about 446 doctors, about 14 of whom are female, or about 3%. Interestingly, of these 14 women, only 4, less than 1%, are listed primarily as physicians, the rest appear primarily under other categories including writer, criminal, and “other activities.” Webwinnow (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's quite a reasonable point. It's quite likely, even, that women physicians are underrepresented. That is not, however, a reason in and of itself to keep an article which does not meet the notability criteria. Instead, what should be done (if one's goal is to improve their representation) is to create articles about other, notable women physicians. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You’re right; the comment was just a statistical observation. The goal is not to improve their representation, but to simply point out that the representation of female physicians is sparse. The article under discussion represents an example of a physician who has achieved a significant degree of notability, perhaps more than any other female, contemporary physician. Therein is the choice. Your thoughtful remarks are appreciated.Webwinnow (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Known as a compelling speaker in Northern California. Merced Pharmacist
 * The comment signed "Merced Pharmacist" was actually made by   Dloh  cierekim  15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment Wiki's definition of fame is rather capricious. Being Surgeon General is quite a high bar to pass for a physician. Were this person a porn star or musician, simply a published work would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardfull (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Forwardfull (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, most musicians and porn stars do not qualify as notable (this is different from fame) and those articles are deleted on a daily basis. It isn't our role to decide which profession contributes most to society.  Our role is to document verifiable facts from reliable sources. The problem in this article isn't the "claims", which may support inclusion, it the "verification".  No one can find any 3rd party reliable sources that demonstrate that the claims are accurate.  That a doctor is "more important" than a porn star is an opinion, even if most people agree, and not the criteria here.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Related Observation: It does appear that if a porno-person opens an orifice and successfully sells sex, becoming a star, that is considered potentially “notable”; yet if a physician opens an orifice and successful sells medicine, becoming a well-known spokesperson, it’s somehow “immoral” or considered advertising. Example, this entrant is a nationally recognized medical spokesperson, but it has been suggested, and accomplished, that reference to her numerous speaking engagements be deleted, thereby abrogating a wealth of reliably sourced criteria for inclusion. If our goal is to inform, provide information, and not to judge, isn’t this an arbitrary form of censorship? Webwinnow (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepShe is a nationally known Educator, interviewing countless students for MIT Admission, for nearly two decades, teaching Resident Physicians, giving medical lectures in many states across the USA, and writing  medical articles for publication.  Piacera (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (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.