Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Midei


 * 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. Fairly obvious BLP1E. There may be a case to be made for some information being inserted in other related articles, but there is no case to be made for a BLP existing about this issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Midei

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP1E This person is only widely know for his overuse of a surgical procedure. Unfortunately health care professionals are disciplined regularly, and this is not encyclopedic content even if it did catch the fancy of a news media in this case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete In an article about doctors allegedly overusing coronary stents, the NYT article calls him "a Baltimore cardiologist, Dr. Mark Midei." That hardly sounds as if he were notable at the time he got into the news as a stent-overusing posterboy (he and many of his patients say, as a scapegoat). Wikipedia is not a wall of shame for non-public-figure people.   Sharktopus  talk  23:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with FloNight and Sharktopus.  Based on the findings last month by the Maryland Medical Board in revoking his license, Midei appears to have engaged in wrongful conduct. But Wikipedia's function is not to serve as the modern town square where criminals (or violators of ethical rules) are marched out for public humiliation.  I don't think there's a sufficient showing of notability beyond the stent scandal.  For that reason, and despite the wide coverage given to the stent scandal, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that WP:BLP1E should apply. Cbl62 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (I'm the author.) Due to the wide coverage of the stent scandal, why not rename instead of delete? Jesanj (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered renaming the article instead of starting an Afd discussion. But decided that in this instance I did not think that renamning the article would correct the BLP concerns in the article since the article is written as a biography. Additionally, I'm not convinced that the events surrounding his rate of using the sents, and his loss of medical privileges would warrant a standalone article. Instead, I think that the material would be more appropriate in a more general article that discusses rates of surgical treatment of patients using stents, or maybe one on the overuse of medical procedures in general. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why not consider renaming instead of delete? And is this really one event? On December 14, 2010, The Baltimore Sun published an article titled Timeline: Mark Midei and the stents case. From my reading of the timeline, which mentions Midei has also sued the hospital, I'm don't know why WP:BLP1E should apply. Do timelines typically get published for single events? I don't think so. Even if the consensus is that WPBLP1E should apply, it states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate". Does anyone dispute that this "scandal" is significant or that the individual's role is substantial and well documented? It appears the stent scandal and its fallout, for lack of a better name—which has significant coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the United States Senate Committee on Finance, and national news sources—is notable, possibly in addition to Midei. Jesanj (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Coronary stent has a section on controversy about overuse of stents. Perhaps some of these news articles could be referenced there. The focus should be the newsworthy topic -- overuse of stents -- not the particular case and identity of one doctor involved. My knowledge of this case is from reading the NYT article and the Wikipedia article, but Midei does not sound like a hideous villain or monster. He implanted a lot of needed stents because he became a specialist in that area, and others contend that eventually he implanted stents that were not needed as well. The article makes a big deal that Midei on one particular day inserted 30 stents. I don't know about stents but specialist cataract surgeons accomplish each individual surgery very quickly because they have a big professional team that preps each patient beforehand and then cares for the patient again once the surgery ends. The NYT article points out there were other surgeons from bigger hospitals who did more stents than Midei. Is it a crime by Midei that in a big city like Balitmore one of its hospitals, and one of the surgeons in one of its hospitals, became known as the best person for doing stents, so that one person does a lot of stent work for a lot of hospitals?   Sharktopus  talk  13:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm wrong to entertain the possibility mentions of a "wall of shame" or a "hideous villain or monster" are subtle insinuations this page is an attack page. My thinking is that this sensational language is not helping further the discussion. I think the Cleveland Clinic quote is crucial to the article because this doctor makes it clear many others are/have likely practiced medicine in Midei's fashion. As for the 30 stents in a day, the WSJ is the one that said it could set a record for Abbott. It appears the Senate Finance Committee's investigation is the ultimate source for this detail that other sources have picked up on it. Do you think the article is undue with it's focus? If so, here's a recent quote from this week's Lancet. "In one of the most outstanding of recent cases, Mark Midei, who worked at St Joseph Medical Center of Towson, MD, had his licence revoked in July by the Maryland Board of Physicians, after he implanted 30 stents in a single day in 2008 ... the Baltimore Sun, which broke the story about Midei and campaigned against unnecessary stent procedures. Apart from Midei, there are cases of improper physician practice under investigation in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas." So how is it one event to have become known for overusing one procedure multiple times in one's career, leading to complex legal and career issues? In the opinion of the Lancet, Midei is an "most outstanding" example for one issue, not an event, as the title of the article is "US physicians urge end to unnecessary stent operations". They even include a picture of Midei in their piece. But even if the consensus is that Midei is known for "one event" (though I haven't seen any rationale on this), WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented ... a separate biography may be appropriate". Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not intending to imply anything evil about the article, or to deny the good faith of the article's creator. Instead, I would point out that a non-notable person who gets mentioned in the context of one newsworthy story is exactly the kind of person WP:BLP1E was designed to cover. One reason for that policy is exactly that it is almost impossible to create a non-negative article about a non-notable person known only for one embarrassing involvement in a major news story, no matter how well-meaning and sincere the article creator might be. I was only vaguely familiar with this policy myself, but I learned about it after seeing the discomfort of several editors expressed at WT:DYK. Without knowing about that policy, I can absolutely imagine myself doing what Jesanj had done, seeing a person's name mentioned in a bunch of news stories and creating a bio for the person thus mentioned. I hope Jesanj will continue to create interesting well-written articles on many topics related to his/her interests.   Sharktopus  talk  16:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the WP:BLP1E is intended to correct for precisely this type of media coverage about an otherwise non-notable person. The flurry of media coverage is all about "one" narrow aspect of this persons life, and does not reflect a lifetime of accomplishments or a highly significant single event that would general warrant someone having national media exposure. This is a news story, rather than something that warrants an encyclopedia entry. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JAMA, The Lancet and the Journal of Public Health Policy do not typically all mention unencyclopedic news, in my opinion. Above you mentioned "I think that the material would be more appropriate in a more general article that discusses rates of surgical treatment of patients using stents, or maybe one on the overuse of medical procedures in general". Perhaps this general approach is right. But there are already two lines about stenting at overutilization. I agree that this issue needs expanding at coronary stent. But the Lancet introduces their article this way: "A recent medical scandal in Maryland has drawn attention to the widespread problem of overstenting in the USA and left doctors' regulators searching for answers." WP:1E says, "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident." The "medical scandal in Maryland" is at least a minor event. The article Overstenting in the United States might deserve creating too, as covering the issue at coronary stent might overwhelm that article. Jesanj (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lancet article mentions Midei's name 11 times, more than my quote above suggests. Jesanj (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And the coverage in newspapers and medical journals isn't a "narrow aspect" of Midei's life. It's about how he made a living, and how that came under scrutiny. Jesanj (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 23 August 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.