Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Lens


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Marko Lens

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable individual writing an article to promote himself. It seems as if this plastic surgeon uses Wikipedia as a free advertising site. There's nothing about him, and he hasn't edited anything else than this article to brag about himself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator overstates his case, using rather aggressive language which is really not necessary here. Remember that WP:BLP applies across namespaces, including the AfD pages; there is no need for disparaging comments about the subject and it is also not clear if this is indeed a WP:AUTO case. The nominator neglected to notify the article's creator about this AfD, which I have now done. Although the article does not mention it, the subject holds a PhD, in addition to his medical professional degrees, and appears to be a bona fide researcher. GoogleScholar does show one well-cited paper (with 147 citations), but the citations fairly quickly taper of after that, for an H-index of about 10. That's respectable but not enough to demonstrate academic notability, especially in medicine. There is nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:ACADEMIC (no significant academic awards, journal editorships, etc). Similarly, nothing to indicate passing WP:BIO. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right, "truly non-notable" is a bit redundant and I removed it. I thought to notify the creator, but saw that his last edit was two years ago so I doubt he'll return, but thank you for notifying him. As for holding a PhD and having published cited papers, I don't think that's enough for notability. If it were, I'd have my own article here as would many many more - and I'm just as "truly non-notable" myself. :-) Jeppiz (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC but there's an outside chance of passing WP:GNG instead — I found several hits for his name in Google news archive . The reason I'm going for a weak delete rather than a weak keep, given this evidence, is that the hits I found did not seem to be very high quality or anything we could use as a source about him: they consisted of articles in tabloids such as the Daily Mail and breathless publicity pieces in cosmetics magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (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.