Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark


 * 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. I'm drawing this to a close early as the influx of inexperienced editors is swamping the discussion and causing the temperature to rise. We have had clear analysis of the article and sources by experienced editors who have universally called this as a delete. Participation is already beyond the mean so it seems safe to call this one early to avoid further problems from the apparent external canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Varnell Clark

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be pure promotion. I first nominated it for speedy but it was suggested an AfD discussion would be better. The creator of the article is a rather obvious promotional WP:SPA whose sole Wiki-activity is creating writing this article, as well as inserting promotional material about this person into other articles, , , or otherwise misusing Wikipedia to promote this person , ,. The article is more or less her CV. Even though written in a somewhat promotional tone, there is nothing to suggest notability. Writing academic papers and lecturing is not enough, that would make every academic in the world notable (and this person does not appear to occupy an academic position, so less notable that hundreds of thousands of academics who publish and lecture). The subject has also written some books, none of which appear notable and do not appear to have been published by any major publishing house. Last, apparently she worked for a local TV station in 1996. That is also far from notability. In short, this article and the activity of its creation are purely done for promotional purposes, and the subject is not notable beyond a relative notability that hundreds of thousands of people enjoy. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've notified the creator of the article, whose response was to delete the AfD notice from the article . I'm afraid this further proves that it's a purely promotional WP:SPA.Jeppiz (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

DMRRT I an  not a very experienced Wiki user, but this article is not promotional. Miss Clark is one of the top Respiratory Therapists and nursing researchers in the US as evidence by her awards and publications. She lectures all over the world. Her books and publications have been translated into several languages. In addition she has had a very successful career as a journalist. The scholar link you listed on top proves it. The information is well referenced by 3rd party websites and sources. Why are you trying to delete it? The content on this page is verifiable and does not violate any copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yes, the content is verifiable and nobody said it violate any copyrights, but how is this person notable? You claim she is one of the top researchers in the US, but it is not evidenced by any awards or publications. On the contrary, I found no particular academic record in peer-reviewed journals, no PhD and no professorship. Most starting assistant professors have academic CVs that are stronger. The same thing goes for the alleged "very successful career as a journalist". For which major newspapers has she written? I have absolutely no objection to this person, who probably is charming and intelligent person. That is not the point, though. The question if if she meets Wikipedia's requirement of notability, and nothing in either your article or your reply provide any verifiable information that she is more notable than hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons who write research papers or are journalists.Jeppiz (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Concerning notability Given that claim that the subject is a "leading researcher", I checked it out. Not one single hit on JSTOR, very few hits on Google Scholar, only one of which appears to have been cited, and only 8 cites for that one. That is very low, influential books and articles have thousands of cites. Once again, this could be a charming person but she is most definitely not a top researcher.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

She taught second and third year medical students in Boston, wrote for Reuters news, started many of the regular feature pages on Medcape/WebMD and is the only nurse to receive the American College of Chest Physicians International Humanitarian Award, but most of that I was told by someone called “ the Red Pen of Doom”  we could not put in the article because I would have to reference her CV. We could only put 3rd party verified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And She is published by the leading medical textbook publisher in the US  JB Learning. http://www.jblearning.com/about/overview/ She was also a columnist for Advance News for 20 years, the leading national magazine for Respiratory Therapists and Nurses. http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/   I know her text books have been published in Russian and Indonesian. I can find websites for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neither teaching medical students nor writing for Reuters news is notable. I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself, but teaching students or writing are claims that would apply to hundreds of thousands or millions. A Google search for "American College of Chest Physicians International Humanitarian Award + Varnell Clark" does not return a single hit. And like you say, “ the Red Pen of Doom” is not a reliable source. If no particular notability can be verified from a reliable source, then the subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm afraid you're confusing being available online with notability. Again, her textbook is almost never cited, it is not notable by academic standards. Jeppiz (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is interesting: you said she was not published by a notable publisher and I showed that she is published by the leading text book publisher in the US and one of the leading national magazines for 20 years, you ignored that. You said, that she did not have a viable teaching CV, I can prove she does. You ignored that.

You can't find the humanitarian award. Here is the link. http://2010.accpmeeting.org/program/award-winners

Here is a link where she is guest lecturing in Spain in a few weeks, http://cesearchengine.com/ce_details.php?ce_id=22769

Here is a link the American College of Chest physicians posted about her on You tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CITImJwiA&list=PLD3C4E6CC68FA948D

Here are several links to some of her peer reviewed articles (I was told that we could not put too many on Wikipedia because it would look promotional) please note these are all 3rd party publications.


 * 1) Varnell Clark, Margaret (2014). "CME Monograph: Managing Hyponatremia in the Hospitalized Patient" (PDF). CME University and the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved 6 January 2014. http://fcmcme.org/courses/2222/PDF/CME-U_Managing_Hypo_Mngraph_fnl.pdf
 * 2) Varnell Clark, Margaret (2007). "Peer Review Article: Base Hospital 43: The Emory Unit". MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3): 10. 9 (3). p. 10..
 * 3) Deitelzweig, Steven et al. (2013). "Outcomes Assessment of Hyponatremia in a Regional Hospital Medicine Program". CME University. Retrieved 29 January 2014.http://www.ceknowledgecenter.com/index.php/services#outcomes
 * 4) Greenberg, Barry et al. (2013). "Measuring Continuing Medical Education Outcomes: An Assessment of a Heart Failure Society of America Inc Annual Meeting Symposium" (PDF). Heart Failure Society of America. Retrieved 29 January 2014. http://clarkmedicalwriting.com/uploads/HFSA_Poster_-_Handout_version.pdf
 * 5) Deitelzweig, Clark et al. (2015). "Longitudinal Evaluation of a Multimodel Regional Continuing Medical Education Initiative". CME University. Retrieved 12 May 2015. http://nebula.wsimg.com/4271df4e99cd111ad97a514566fcf204?AccessKeyId=F256D2BCD8406D5BD17F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
 * 6) Clark M  "We Need to Do a Better Job of Preparing for the Next Big Disaster". 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2014.

Here is a link to two monographs in which she was asked to be guest faculty for the Florida Medical Society last year.

Asthma and the Primary Care Physician https://flmedical.inreachce.com/Details?resultsPage=1&sortBy=&category=a845c7b0-2f2e-45d8-a4ca-f2a298d6c388&groupId=8792ffdb-287b-411e-8f68-d232d7bc4d6e

Stroke Prevention and Improving Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation https://flmedical.inreachce.com/Details?resultsPage=1&sortBy=&category=3d4694d6-de6a-4d89-b683-3f91bdfde5d9&groupId=3b16516d-53f5-461b-92ce-8c476fcc10d4

How can you say she is not notable? How many nurses are the sole faculty on physician education programs?

I can start tracking down her Shakespeare work if you like. There aren't a lot of people who are quoted in the Introductions to the Oxford Shakespeare series. There are a lot of English professors out there who wish they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OH and I didn’t do this, but it looks like other people are referencing her work in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St._Alphonsus_Liguori,_Rome


 * I realize you're new here, but we're not talking about the same thing. I never said she didn't do anything. And I would kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth, which you're doing repeatedly in the post above. She is no doubt a good physician nurse, but you're intentionally or unintentionally flooding your posts with "stuff", perhaps hoping the mass of it will sound convincing. It would be much better if you found one clear case of her being notable.
 * You talk about her teaching CV. Utterly irrelevant, there are millions of teachers. Giving guest lectures abroad certainly isn't notable either.
 * The most damning case against her notability as a researcher comes from you. You provide what you claim to be six peer-reviewed articles. I checked each and every one of them in Google Scholar. Not all of them are really peer-reviewed articles but the most revealing fact is that Not one of them has ever been cited. Again, there are hundreds of thousands of academics who both publish and are cited, and all are more notable as academics than this woman.
 * The book to which you have kept inserting links is a self-published book. It cannot even be used on Wikipedia as per WP:RS and it is not notable.
 * The book by "the leading text book publisher in the US" has been cited a mere 8 times, and not reviewed even once at Amazon. There is nothing to suggest it's notable.
 * I know nothing of her Shakespearean research but with all due respect, given how severely you misrepresent her academic record I am afraid I must suspect the same to be the case here.
 * In short, you have made my much more convinced than when we started that she is not notable. I doubted it from the start, but thought there may be a possibility. A fact-check of your post above, long and polemic though it is, shows that unless a new Wikipedia policy decide that every single academic who has ever published anything is notable, this woman is not notable. At the very least, no verifiable proof of her notability has been given.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

She is not a physician! She is a nurse who is recognized as acknowledged as an expert in several countries and teaches physicians !!! Her articles have been cited, her textbook is used all over the world. How come I can find them in google and you can't? Just like you couldn't find the humanitarian award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 23:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * My bad, so she is not a physician, she is a nurse. Changes nothing. There is nothing to suggest she is a recognized as an expert anywhere. On the contrary, all the evidence this far shows the contrary. If you can find articles of her that have been widely cited, all you need to do is to post the link here to Google Scholar so we can verify how often she has been cited, by whom and in which publications. |Here is a random example of a medical article that really is published in a leading peer reviewed journal and has been widely cited.Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be something personal with you. Her article has been on Wikipedia for more than a year with no problems. I have shown where she is published both nationally and internationally. Her books are translated into other languages and used world wide, she has won awards from major national physician associations, is asked to present educational programs for physicians, is cited in other publications. And your response is to accuse me of   "but you're intentionally or unintentionally flooding your posts with WP:STUFF, perhaps hoping the mas"   I am not sure what you mean by this, but clearly you seem to have a grudge here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * There is nothing personal, and I kindly encourage you to read WP:NPA before you start talking about the personal motives of fellow users. You may also want to read WP:COI. I don't think we'll get any further until you start provide verifiable facts (verifiable by proper sources). I already showed you how to link to Google Scholar, if she really is well-published and well-cited. My own search of Google Scholar, JSTOR (for academic publications) and Amazon (for her books) all show the opposite of your claims. She has almost no citations in Google Scholar, I did not find her on JSTOR and the book you claim to be so famous is neither widely cited on Google Scholar nor ever reviewed on Amazon. You make a lot of claims, but not one of them stands up to scrutiny. If she is as notable as you say, you should not have to spend your time making inflated arguments here, you could just post a few links to show it. Is Graham Colditz notable? Yes, | he is, and that link proves it, his work has been cited 221398 times. His top article alone has been cited | 3911 times. That's how easy it is to prove the notability of someone who really has an notable academic record.Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete: I wish I could support this, but I'm afraid I cannot go for the yes. Even tried a search, but nothing is really special to support this article and discussion. Jeppiz's comments also concerns me about this nobility of this article. Unless you find something that is really reliable (and also verified, besides news sources), I have to shoot for the delete. Sorry.-- Damirgraffiti &#124; ☺What's Up?☺   00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me pull some additional 3rd party references. But please explain how these people are more notable than Miss Clark. They are not being held to this standard.

— DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollye_Jacobs
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlene_Kramer
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Kolcaba
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Orem
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_E._Rogers
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ildaura_Murillo-Rohde — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no idea if those persons are notable or not. If they are, great. If they aren't, perhaps those articles should be deleted. In either case, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Even if you manage to find another non-notable person, it doesn't make the subject of this article any more notable.Jeppiz (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And please let me know which one of these references do we need to validate. Do we need a second reference for Marquis' Who's Who or the Oxford Shakespeare?

References 1.	b"Congratulations to The CHEST Foundation's 2010 Award Winners | CHEST 2010". Chest 2010. 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 2.	 b c d e "Marquis Who's Who". Retrieved 8 January 2014. 3.	Varnell Clark, Margaret (2014). "CME Monograph: Managing Hyponatremia in the Hospitalized Patient" (PDF). CME University and the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 4.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2007). "Peer Review Article: Base Hospital 43: The Emory Unit". MedGenMed. 2007; 9(3): 10. 9 (3). p. 10. PMC 2100082. 5.	 Deitelzweig, Steven et al. (2013). "Outcomes Assessment of Hyponatremia in a Regional Hospital Medicine Program". CME University. Retrieved 29 January 2014. 6.	 Greenberg, Barry et al. (2013). "Measuring Continuing Medical Education Outcomes: An Assessment of a Heart Failure Society of America Inc Annual Meeting Symposium" (PDF).Heart Failure Society of America. Retrieved 29 January 2014. 7.	 Deitelzweig, Clark et al. (2015). "Longitudinal Evaluation of a Multimodel Regional Continuing Medical Education Initiative". CME University. Retrieved 12 May 2015. 8.	Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Buku Asma Panduan Penatalaksanaan Klinis Pengarang Margaret Varnell Clark. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 9.	 "The CHEST Foundation's Not One More Life Asthma Clinic". Chest 2010. 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2014. 10.	 "We Need to Do a Better Job of Preparing for the Next Big Disaster". 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2014. 11.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (1998). Inspiration: Your Guide to Better Breathing. ISBN 0937776114. 12.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2005). The Louisiana Irish. ISBN 0595433634. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 13.	 "Chef John Folse Guests and Goodies: Recommends Margaret Varnell's The Louisiana Irish". 2012. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 14.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2009). Asthma: A Clinicians Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 15.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Самая большая электронная читалка рунета. Поиск книг и журналов. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 16.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Asma Panduan Penatalaksanaan Klinis. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 0763778540. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 17.	 Varnell Clark, Margaret (2013). Walking through Rome. ISBN 1475981333. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 18.	 "2013 Decatur Book Festival: Festival Appearances – Margaret Varnell Clark". 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 19.	 "The Shakespeare Bulletin". Multiple Peer review Articles:. ISSN 0748-2558. 20.	 "Shakespeare on Film & Video: Books and Articles in the UC Berkeley Library". Richard III. 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2014. 21.	 "Shakespeare Quarterly, suppl. World Shakespeare Bibliography 200153.5 (2002): 665-679". Margaret Varnell, On the Move with the RSC: An Interview with Adrian Noble. 2002. Retrieved6 January 2014. 22.	 Jouett, John (2008). "The Tragedy of King Richard III 2001 & 2008 edition, page 94, 109". ISBN 9780199535880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I found these references. Please let me know if you need more.

Here is a link to 288 articles written by her from Advance for RTs as Margaret Clark (after marriage) http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret+clark&SS=R

Here is a link to an additional 118 listing her as Margaret Varnell http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret+varnell&SS=R

Here is a link to 24 articles published as Margaret Clark in the Advance Nursing Management Magazine http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret%20clark

Here is a link to 18 articles published as Margaret Varnell in The Advance Nursing Management Magazine. http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Search/SearchResult.aspx?KW=margaret%20varnell

Here are some other articles that reference her work from a google scholar search:

Caring for the Dying: The Importance of Nursing PA Grady - J. Health Care L. & Pol'y, 1998 - HeinOnline ... See Margaret A Varnell, Palliative Care: A Patient's Right, 1 Advance for Nurses 29, 29 (1999) (stating that palliative care is defined as therapy designed to reduce the intensity of uncomfortable symptoms, but not to produce a cure). 298 Page 2. ...

Nursing Perspective on End-of-Life Care: Research and Policy Issues, A LE Moody, J Lunney, PA Grady - J. Health Care L. & Pol'y, 1998 - HeinOnline ... 57, 57 (1998). 8. "Palliative care.., is therapy designed to relieve or reduce the intensity of uncom- fortable symptoms, but not to produce a cure." Margaret A. Varnell, Palliative Care: A Pa- tient's Right, 1 ADV. FOR NURSES 29, 29 (1999). ...

There are two citations to her work in this book http://www.percussionaire.com/pdfs/part2chapt5.pdf

Her articles are cited in this bibliography http://www.medtech.com.br/percussionaire/Ipv-1.htm

Theses links reference articles she wrote for Reuters, I am not sure how to verify all the citing articles. I know she was with them for years and found 64 references/citation in all.

PrevnarTM: A Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine for Infants and Young Children https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/136_prevnar_cetap_e.pdf

Health Officials Warn of 'Klingerman Virus' E-Mail Hoax By Margaret A. Varnell Reuters http://washingtonpost.com:80/wp-dyn/articles/A58021-2000May23.html

An e-mail message warning of a mysterious Klingerman virus arriving via a package is a hoax, say officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.

Citations to her asthma book from Google Scholar

A Review on methods using capnogram signals for detecting asthmatic patients M Kazemi, MB Malarvili, AH Teo - Jurnal Teknologi, 2013 - jurnalteknologi.utm.my ... [1] Amy, P. Miller. 2006. New Development in Asthma Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. [2] Margaret Varnell Clark. 2011. Asthma: A Clinician's Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC. [3] Christopher Fanta, H., S. Elisabeth Stieb, L. Elaine Carter, E. Kenan Haver. ... Related articles Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

Assessment on methods used to detect asthmatic and non-ashmatic conditions using capnogram signal M Kazemi, NI Imarah - Jurnal Teknologi (Science & Engineering), 2013 - eprints.utm.my ... [1] Amy, P. Miller. 2006. New Development in Asthma Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. [2] Margaret Varnell Clark. 2011. Asthma: A Clinician's Guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC. [3] Christopher Fanta, H., S. Elisabeth Stieb, L. Elaine Carter, E. Kenan Haver. ... Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save

Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations M Guazzi, V Adams, V Conraads, M Halle… - European heart …, 2012 - Eur Soc Cardiology From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well- supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET)[ie progressive exercise provocation in ... Cited by 40 Related articles All 15 versions Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

Assessment on methods used to detect asthmatic and non-ashmatic conditions using capnogram signal M Kazemi, NI Imarah - Jurnal Teknologi (Science & Engineering), 2013 - eprints.utm.my In this paper, a review on methods for detecting asthmatic conditions using capnogram is presented. This includes an investigation on capnography as a new approach for monitoring asthma and related researches. Manual analysis of capnogram is time-consuming and led ... Related articles All 3 versions Cite Save [PDF] from utm.my

NEW PROGNOSTIC INDEX TO DETECT THE SEVERITY OF ASTHMA AUTOMATICALLY USING SIGNAL PROCESSING TECHNIQUES OF CAPNOGRAM K MOHSEN - 2013 - eprints.fbme.utm.my Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the bronchial tubes that happens approximately in 3% to 5% of all people in their life. Currently, capnography is a new method to monitor the asthmatic conditions, and unlike traditional methods, it is taken while the patient is ... Related articles Cite Save [PDF] from ulaval.ca

[PDF] Mécanismes de la toux chez les athlètes s' entraînant en air froid M Bordeleau - 2013 - theses.ulaval.ca Résumé Les athlètes, particulièrement ceux impliqués dans des sports d'endurance et ceux en contact avec des allergènes, des polluants et d'autres irritants présents dans l'air, sont plus à risque de développer des troubles respiratoires. En effet, ces athlètes d'élite sont ... Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save More [PDF] from ul.pt

Determinantes genéticos na fisiopatologia da asma RR Prabhudas - 2013 - repositorio.ul.pt A asma é um grave problema de saúde pública a nível mundial que apresenta uma elevada morbilidade. Apresentando uma interacção complexa de diversos factores, a asma é uma doença inflamatória crónica das vias respiratórias caracterizada por uma obstrução ... Related articles Cite Save

[CITATION] 抗白细胞介素-13 疫苗治疗哮喘的研究进展 马雁冰 - 中国生物制品学杂志, 2013 - cqvip.com 哮喘是仅次于癌症的世界第二大致死, 致残疾病, 造成的经济负担超过结核病和艾μ 病的总和. 严重的哮喘目前尚不能治愈, 迫切需要新的有效的疾病干预手段. 临床研究显示, 白细胞介素-13 (interfeukin-13, IL-13) 与哮喘密切相关, 动物模型研究也表明, IL-13 在哮喘病理机制中处于 ... Related articles Cite Save

Her Shakespeare work:

There are 2 citations in The Tragedy of King Richard III: The Oxford Shakespeare The Tragedy of King Richard III (Oxford World's Classics) Paperback – June 15, 2008. On pages 94 and 109.

Search inside on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-King-Richard-III-Shakespeare/dp/0199535884/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1431483229&sr=8-2&keywords=Oxford+shakespeare+Richard+III

This book has 3 citations to her Shakespeare publications https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2yM8BQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=hfkk_MOjuu&sig=5RCmiNPgCJLEBeKnK4HND0heWLc#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

This book has 2 citations. Shakespeare's Spiral: Tracing the Snail in King Lear and Renaissance Painting  Gleyzon, Fran&çois-Xavie https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cS2WPLOyB9QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=margaret+varnell+shakespeare+&ots=rYqFd3fwHn&sig=AqwRiYaodgp0_c576SNC5jwu43Q#v=onepage&q=varnell%20&f=false

This book has 2 citations The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory Lisa S. Starks, Courtney Lehmann https://books.google.com/books?id=Hg-3hBD8cMEC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=shakespeare+in+love+varnell&source=bl&ots=itTRnAEVdE&sig=1ujciZaE7Rf-OJBjnPrekn7UXwk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LRSVfDSCYq3oQTHiICoAQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

This has 2 citations Star Power: Al Pacino, Looking for Richard and the Cultural Capital of Shakespeare on Film

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509200690897617?journalCode=gqrf20

This book has 1 citation

Almost Shakespeare: Reinventing His Works for Cinema and Television edited by James R. Keller, Leslie Stratyner https://books.google.com/books?id=2yM8BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=shakespeare+in+love+varnell&source=bl&ots=hfkkZOKkox&sig=Pyo86UvS28gcSoSFRW9uuhHN068&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LRSVfDSCYq3oQTHiICoAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=shakespeare%20in%20love%20varnell&f=false

Other citations from google scholar

[CITATION] Acting the Words: An Interview with Patsy Rodenburg MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1998 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] A Mission of Performing and Educating M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2000 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] On the Move with the RSC: An Interview with Adrian Noble M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2001 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Acting and Directing Shakespeare: An Interview with Margaret A. Varnell M Pennington - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Shakespeare and Film, Adaptations LS Starks - 1998 - Texas A&M University-Commerce Cite Save More

[CITATION] Stanley Wells Reflects on Shakespeare's Life in Drama MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Hamlet, Georgia Shakespeare Festival M Varnell - Shakespeare Bulletin, 2000 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Macbeth, Tulane Summer Shakespeare Festival MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1996 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Sir Peter Hall on the Art of Playing Shakespeare MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Working as an Actor: An Interview with Michael Maloney M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 2001 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] King Lear, Royal National Theatre MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1998 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] Looking for Richard, A Fox Searchlight Pictures Production MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] The Bedford Falls Company Production M Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1999 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

[CITATION] The Training of Actors at RADA MA Varnell - SHAKESPEARE BULLETIN, 1997 - LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, … Cite Save

This book references her Louisiana Irish book Louisiana: The First 300 Years JB Garvey, ML Widmer - 2001 - books.google.com ... Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism; Laura Street/ Noel Memorial Library-LSU in Shreveport; Dorothy L. Benge-Los Islenos Heritage and Cultural Society; Mary Curry-Jefferson Parish Historical Society; Margaret Varnell/ medical historian; Cary B. McNamara and ... Cited by 1 Related articles Cite Save More

Sorry, for the second posting. Someone just told me she wrote for Post Scripts. I didn’t know. Here are the results from Google scholar. Apparently, she has over 40 academic publications related to Shakespeare. The ones listed above are the articles that have been cited by other authors, not her full publication list.

Google Scholar: Shakespeare on screen – 2 citations By Sarah Hatchuel, Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin https://books.google.com/books?id=o4P5AKSlAogC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=postscript+1912+richard+III&source=bl&ots=unNZ0VD7DQ&sig=sBB_Sm5-E_uoMhyv6cuuyeQLtR4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JctSVZKJIca2oQS33oBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=varnell&f=false

2 citations- The Tragedy of King Richard III By William Shakespeare https://books.google.com/books?id=RrhKwVUHESYC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=postscript+1912+richard+III+varnell&source=bl&ots=oBJNhgpXKF&sig=rvw_9OAXqW0sPVhDzgz712F4WxM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w8xSVevBM8jFggS2zIHICQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=postscript%201912%20richard%20III%20varnell&f=false

From a google search of  “postscript 1912 richard III varnell” Citations to her work were found in:

Bibliografie Des Fantastischen Films http://www.bibfan.de/frindres.php?such=Richard+III+/+Life+and+Death+of+King+Richard+III%2C+The+%281912%29&sziel=tind

Shakespeare on Film & Video: Books and Articles in the UC Berkeley Library http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/ShakespeareBib.html

General Reference Bibliography/Shakespeare http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/Production_Shakespeare/PrintAllReferenceBibliography.cfm?public=yes&RequestTimeout=20000

Post scripts home page http://postscriptessays.blogspot.com/2008/08/articles-bibliographies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — DMRRT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Amazing that you are trying to throw this lady off Wikipedia. I googled her and came up with 90,119 results including reviews, speaking appearances, and people recommending her books.

Cajuns, creoles, pirates and planters - Claitor's Law Books www.claitors.com/veach/cajunsv3n26.doc

2010 - Chef John Folse & Company http://www.jfolse.com/stirrin/facts2010.htm

AMWA-SE Past Meetings and Events www.amwa-se.org/meetings_03_04.html

Margaret Varnell Clark - AJC Decatur Book Festival https://www.decaturbookfestival.com/2013/authors/detail.php?id=313

And her books get great reviews on Amazon! http://www.amazon.com/Walking-through-Rome-Interesting-Eternal-ebook/dp/B00C6VIJLS/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

What’s the problem? RCP110 (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — RCP110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi,

Margaret Varnell is quoted a lot in Shakespeare in the UK and in Europe. And not just as a reference, they actively discuss her work. Here are some examples:

Shakespeare in Space: Recent Shakespeare Productions on Screen https://books.google.com/books?isbn=082045714

Enter Shakespeare.: - Page 302 https://books.google.com/books?id=TZplAAAAMAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Berit+Bettina+Schubert%22&dq=inauthor:%22Berit+Bettina+Schubert%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fA9TVYTcIdG7ogSopYDACQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA.

Hamlet Studies - Volume 23 - Page 136 (in German) https://books.google.com/books?id=EeNDAAAAYAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw5TVY-dOY3coATbqoGIBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg

Shakespeare and Higher Education: A Global Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn9lAAAAMAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yw5TVY-dOY3coATbqoGIBA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ

William Shakespeare, Richard III: nouvelles perspectives critiques https://books.google.com/books?id=LRkrAQAAIAAJ&q=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&dq=varnell+Margaret+shakespeare&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UBBTVY75BZbaoATC2IHABw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK

The Creative Reception of William Shakespeare in The Netherlands: The Case Of Arthur Van Schendel. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3146/1/SteinmetzArdaseer99MLitt.pdf

Literarydiva (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Literarydiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete When in doubt I analyse the references:
 * http://2010.accpmeeting.org/program/award-winners shows that she exists and was given a grant. Not significant coverage. Fail
 * http://marquiswhoswho.com No mention. We do not use references that require searches, and this is not, to my recollection, WP:RS. Fail
 * http://fcmcme.org/courses/2222/PDF/CME-U_Managing_Hypo_Mngraph_fnl.pdf she is the editor. Thsi is thus part of her body of work. Her editing is not subject to peer review even if the item has been. Fail
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100082/ is a peer revoewed publication. Pass
 * http://www.ceknowledgecenter.com/index.php/services#outcomes Cannto Find Server. Indeterminate, potential Fail
 * http://clarkmedicalwriting.com/uploads/HFSA_Poster_-_Handout_version.pdf 404 error. Fail
 * http://nebula.wsimg.com/4271df4e99cd111ad97a514566fcf204?AccessKeyId=F256D2BCD8406D5BD17F&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 No idea if thsi is peer reviewed or not. Indeterminate.
 * http://mabastore.com/buku-asma-panduan-penatalaksanaan-klinis.html is a book by her. IN general work by someone can not be a reference for them. There are linmited circumstances where this is not so. This does not appear to be ine of them. Fail
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CITImJwiA&list=PLD3C4E6CC68FA948D unreliable source. Fail
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1781282/ Opinion piece by Clark. Fail
 * Varnell Clark, Margaret (1998). Inspiration: Your Guide to Better Breathing. ISBN 0937776114. Book by her. Fail
 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RmJ8GQAACAAJ&dq=margaret+varnell+clark&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UC_HUpb1DcaF2gWDuICwCg Book by her. Fail
 * http://www.jfolse.com/stirrin/facts.htm fails to mention clark. PR piece anyway. Fail
 * http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9780763778545/ spam linl to her own work. Dual Fail
 * http://bookre.org/reader?file=1113571 link to her own work. Fail
 * http://bakulbuku.com/kedokteran-dan-medis/9714-asma-panduan-penatalaksanaan-klinis.html Cannto find server. Indeterminate. Probable Fail
 * http://bijouxpress.com her own books may not be references for her. Fail
 * https://www.decaturbookfestival.com/2013/authors/detail.php?id=313 Speaker profiles tend to be self generated. Primary source. Fail
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/shakespeare-bulletin/oclc/181820423 behind some form of membership wall. No idea.
 * http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/ShakespeareBib.html behind some form of membership wall. No idea.
 * http://www.proquest.com/en-US/catalogs/databases/detail/iipa_ft.shtml redirects to a page where the server cannto be found. IMdeterminate, likely Fail
 * Jouett, John (2008). "The Tragedy of King Richard III 2001 & 2008 edition, page 94, 109". ISBN 9780199535880. Cannto access quoted pages. indeterminate.
 * This analysis shows that there is almost nothing useful in the reference list, which are WP:BOMBARD, leading me to conclude that this is WP:ADMASQ. If the lady were notable then there would be a great tranche of references in WP:RS. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. I see none of that, not to the least degree. This appears to be an attempt made to give her faux notability by having a Wikipedia article. Fiddle   Faddle  11:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that there is a load of listing of alleged references above this message. Doubtless, based on long experience at AfD we will see further lists below this. My firm advice to those who believe that they are references is to check that them meet the criteria in my message above. If they do, then use them in the article, if they do not, please stop bandying them about. With regard to her work, it is simply not usually possible to use it as a reference. Let me try to explain. If s/he manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be her/his work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for her/him, simply because it is the product s/he makes. So it is with research. However, a review of her/his work by others tends to be a review of her/him and her/his methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for her/his work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.
 * Most of this discussion falls into the WP:TLDR category. Arguments need to be policy based, not WP:ILIKEIT and not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And absolutely not "Try this reference for size!" Our job is to write articles.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is getting silly. Instead of understanding WP:BOMBARD the article has now blossomed suddenly with a huge tranche of new alleged references, none of which I intend to analyse. There are at least three areas where WP:CITEKILL has been perpetrated. Every time I see this, especially with an author of self published works, I think WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. There does seem to be a determined effort to publicise this author and these works. Fiddle   Faddle  16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear hear I couldn't agree more, and that was my impression already yesterday after trying to talk to DMRRT. The more we tell the user how to do, the more they do the opposite. I fear we are but a little step away from seeing the entire Google history of the subject posted into the article as "references". I tried to assume good faith at first, but this looks ever more promotional.Jeppiz (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll update the references, there are many out there for her. But I will say we keep getting conflicting direction. When this article was created, I was told I could only use what was in her Who's Who, because it was a published 3rd party, and other sources like that i. e. the YouTube that was not posted by her, etc. Even in this go around, we have to use what is in google scholar? We can't use Pub Med or CINAHL? So for her books we have to use references that appear in Google Scholar and Cite her work, not the work itself? DMRRT (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What you really need is to establish her notability. This far, that has not been done. Currently, every established user who has commented here (three in total) has recommended that the article be deleted as no case for her notability has been made. No established user has recommend the page be kept. And yes, Google scholar would be a good start, as I told you several times yesterday. If I can give a friendly piece of advice, and echo was Timtrent said, stop WP:BOMBARDING the discussion with a mass of stuff. Try to write messages of just a few lines where you make a short, coherent, sourced case.Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability has not been established. What has been established is that the subject is competent in her job, even respected in her field.  This is not notability.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of qualified - or even exceptional - practitioners in any field.  While she has a commendable career, and is clearly a contributor in her profession, she does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please let me finish cleaning this up. You all have gone off on these tangents and decided she is not notable before even giving us a chance to make any changes. When this article was written two years ago, we worked with a couple of editors who wanted the references done this particular way. And now suddenly as of yesterday none of this is right and it all has to be redone. I can go back to those recommendations in the history, I was told to list her books like this: William Faulkner: Novels 1930–1935 (Joseph Blotner and Noel Polk, ed.) (Library of America, 1985) ISBN 978-0-940450-26-4. Specifically, to reference them and not to use reviews. We were forced to use Who's who, which was old at the time. Now you are telling me I have to use google scholar? In fact looking back at the history. I was told by an editor I could not use credentials such as RN. So please try adn work wit us in getting this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out, it would be helpful if you would not assume personal motives (WP:NPA). We simply follow well-established Wikipedia guidelines. The article argues this person is a notable academic, and we apply the clear and detailed guidelines in WP:ACADEMIC to explain why that is not the case. She may very well be a good academic, but that is not the same as a notable academic.Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read your own criteria

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. –

Having another country use your book as their national standard is substantial.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. –

Please read the bio, she was the Editorial Director for Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Medscape/WebMD, and the Pulmonary Medicine Editor of the peer review journal MedGenMed. Medscape/WebMd is the largest and most respected company in Medical Education today.

9. The person is in a field of literature - This certainly does not apply, and let's not even waste any more time on that dead end. She is the author of a self-publihshed book about Rome. That is very far from notability for an author

You seem to keep forgetting the other 3 books. All the medical publications and all the Shakespeare publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMRRT (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not my criteria, Wikipedia's criteria.


 * 7. No, having your book used in another country is not automatically notable. That would make most authors of standard textbooks notable. Truly notable textbooks usually have 3000 cites or more on Google Scholar.


 * 8. Medscape/WebMd isn't even a journal, doesn't apply under Criteria 8. MedGenMed isn't a leading academic journal, it's just an online journal. Besides, she was never the editor of either of them.
 * 9. Typical WP:BOMBARD. One non-notable or several non-notable books, no difference. Notability has not been demonstrated for a single one.


 * Like most users, I give up on you.

'''
 * '''You don't know how to edit WP:COMPETENCE
 * You don't understand academia and what constitutes academic notability WP:ACADEMIC 
 * you refuse to listen WP:HEAR.
 * You're not even trying to make a good article, you're just trying to make sure this person stays on Wikipedia WP:NOTHERE.
 * It's impossible to discuss with you, and I won't waste anymore time. Bye.Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC.  Mini  apolis  23:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, and the spam, desperate digging for notability where it clearly does not exist, SPAs and references to "we" is just worrying. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete routine medical editor.  But,, I think some of your comments are out of place. When there is as strong as case for deletion as there is here, there's no need to get personal.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, you're absolutely right. I got a bit exasperated but that is my problem. Already told the user I'm stepping away from this.Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Give it up DM. This Jeppiz person is clearly on a power trip. She threatened to block you in the very first comment she made and has been on the attack from the start. Look at the tone of her comments. She did not help you and deliberately got in the way when you were trying to make adjustments and interact with the others.

There is a lot of talk here about upholding the “integrity and standards of Wikipedia”. What a joke! Apparently, those standards mean that a google search carries more weight than PubMed and CINAHL.

These people know nothing about medical and scientific research and they don’t know how to interact with authors.

Oh and she sent me a message accusing me of being a sock puppet too. She doesn't listen. She is just interested in expressing her own views, and accusing others to make herself look important, not really in helping anyone. This is a huge ego trip for her. She decided this entry was going to be deleted and that was never going to change. RCP110 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to sign on a look. Yup, Jeppiz sent me a sock puppet message too. You're right it doesn't matter how many times she gets told WE ARE NOT SUCK PUPPETS. She has decided. So she can just be rude and do as she pleases.

I think you are absolutely right too about the “standards” of Wikipedia. How interesting DM that you weren’t allowed to put Miss Clark’s education or previous positions held because that would have been “using her CV to promote her”  even though you could verify them. But American Idol contestants can list their own websites as a reference. Says a lot about Wikipedia. Literarydiva (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find significant coverage that makes the subject notable under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying I am not a sock puppet. Do not send me messages and attempt to negate my opinions by doing so. In reviewing this page it is very obvious that the decision to delete the entry was predetermined and no amount of editing or revision would have changed that outcome. I am equally sure that it will be deleted, not because it is without merit, the Lady appears to be more than notable in her field, but it will be deleted to appease someone’s ego.

It appears that a significant amount of emphasis was placed on google searches. Which allegedly did not produce any results? DM appears to have repeated those searches, the first step in any good scientific evaluation, and found that there were many viable citations to the Lady’s work, as well peer review articles, etc. Which is what the first editor said they were looking for? He posted those results and they were categorized as spam. He/she (I do not know DM) was also apparently not allowed or advised  not to post the material that would further authenticate the Lady’s accomplishments. It is also obvious from the flow of the discussion that while attempting to address a query from one individual, he/she was being harassed by another and not allowed the opportunity to complete the changes without being directed in another area.

I think there are some good people in this discussion that would have been helpful, had they been allowed to be and had DM been allowed to discuss and ask questions. How interesting that no recommendations were actually made on what to add to the article. No one actually helped DM or answered his/her questions. Instead “standards” were discussed at length.

It should also be noted that inappropriate comments made by the Wikipedia editors were left in the body of the discussion, but any comments being made relating to the editorial process were hidden by someone this morning. They accused individuals of being sock puppets and when the charges were answered, they hide it. Interesting! To my professional colleagues who asked me to review this. Thank you. It has been a very thought-provoking case study in how not to manage authors. It also illustrates that Wikipedia’s editorial decisions are arbitrary and easily lend themselves to the editor’s self-gratification. In a poor attempt to impose editorial standards, the credibility of Wikipedia is only being damaged by such practices. M0302 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — M0302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment "I'm not a sockpuppet!", this is your only edit ever and I'm sure everyone believes you. Are you aware Meat puppetry is a form of sock puppetry? Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking they keep holding her to the "standard for physicians". Which she is not. Why don't they compare her to other notable respiratory therapists? Then I realized, because they don't have any in Wikipedia, we are completely ignored as a profession. RCP110 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2015 (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.