Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Scholz


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Scholz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural nomination based on the article's history. Two administrators (I and another) speedily deleted Mark Scholz, MD (now a redirect) based on WP:CSD. The author, who is a WP:SPA and is also involved in Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers, Scholz's book, recreated it. Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and request for WP:SALTing of this entry due to issues identified by nom and readily apparent on a cursory review of the edit history for both these articles. BlueSalix (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. The fact that an article was deletable in the past is not a sufficient reason to delete an article and the nominator did not mention any reason to delete this article based on its current state. Regards  So Why  18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The book is apparently in 625 libraries, has also been published in French (as Touche pas à ma prostate) and has been reviewed in at least one professional journal. Publication:	The Journal of Urology, v185 n5 (201105): 1995-1996,  The author himself has published in major journals.  A/c GScholar,,  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014618 in New England J Med  has been cited 970 times, tho he was one of many authors in a multicenter trial.  DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00234.x  in British J Urology, where he's leading author, has been cited 194 tines. (next highest cited paper, 90 citations) . I agree the purpose of entering this article--and an article aboutthe book -- is likely to be promotional, but that doesnt mean the information itself is not appropriate or the person notable.  DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds better in French. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I reject the notion that a book being shelved in 625 libraries makes it notable, in view of the fact the ALA reports there are 115,000 [] libraries in the U.S. Further, library shelving should not be a guide to notability. Books written under grant are frequently mass mailed gratis to tens of thousands of libraries as a condition of the grantmaker. These unsolicited arrivals end up being sold in the annual disposal sale by the majority of libraries who receive them, but get shelved in at least a percentage where they often sit on the shelf for years gathering dust. BlueSalix (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about the popularity of a book. A book could exist in a single library and be notable, or be in every library and non-notable. However it is a good heuristic or rule of thumb when searching for book reviews (AUTHOR #3) - the more library holdings, the more likely book reviews exist. Green  C  06:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Book reviews and coverage. per AUTHOR #3: NY Times, Publishers Weekly, ABC News, ABC News, NPR. -- Green  C  06:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - Per point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, the subject's work has received "... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nice work by User:Green Cardamom finding the reviews. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:59, 10 February 2014 (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.