Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Sullivan (rehabilitation academic) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Im noticed seeing the same level of detail and evidence in the keep votes that are evident in the delete ones Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Martin Sullivan (rehabilitation academic)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. (this is not MJ Sullivan from Duke University Medical Center). Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Did get a QSO but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. Last afd closed no consensus on the question of the strength of that award but since then others have taken a closer look at honours and notability. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. QSO falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep' I have added some of more information. He appears to have just enough, with the little I have added, to meet WP:Scholar NealeFamily (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which part of Scholar do you think he meets? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment for duffbeerforme - deleting his career information, albeit for plagiarism, and the nominating the article for deletion seems a bit off. Wouldn't it have been better to correctly add the information with appropriate citations - all you have done is waste our time. NealeFamily (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I do not accept that removing a copyright violation well over four years ago was in any way wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that its removal was appropriate, but don't you think that it would have been easier to simply correct it than end up putting the article up for deletion? Just a note from the first time it was put up for deletion - I agree the St Peters affray was a reasonable reason for suspicion and doubt about this persons validity for inclusion in Wiki, many were not notable. NealeFamily (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are sources covering the subject in the required depth. The present article needs to be taken out and shot,but if the consensus is keep, I'm happy to rewrite from scratch (or from my template for new Zealand academics at User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio) if the closing admin pings me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy per request: Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:BIO1E or any other "squeek-by exception" by lacking reliable sourcing. If we close with a headcount only at this time we have a "no consensus". "IF" we examine and consider all the policies and guidelines then there is a fundamental flaw in attempting to skirt some of these with ''"...just enough, with the little I have added, to meet WP:Scholar. This is a WP:BLP and an article that has only primary sources (two of six are basically dead links) does not satisfy any of the WP:RS requirements. If the This page in a nutshell means anything look at the one at the top of Notability (people). Otr500 (talk)


 * We can "squeek" an article in under the radar providing one "exception" (Queen's Service Order) but we will have to ignore other relevant policies and guidelines to provide an exception producing a primary sourced only pseudo biography. --- "OR" --- we can just go with the headcount over !voting. As far as I understand the more broad community consensus is that an improperly sourced BLP does not warrant a stand-alone article. To me this subject does work worthy of notice but what has changed since the last AFD? If there are secondary sources then they should have already been on the article as "adding" more primary sources only makes a subject "look notable".Otr500 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm just not seeing it. There are easy ways to establish that an academic is notable (and I want to be up front with th efact taht New Zealand is not known for producing cutting-edge research in medicine; having excellent hospitals and medical care: yes; a powerhouse of medical research: no.).  What should be there, but is not, is stuff like being on the editorial board of major journals; citations of his article ot show impact; or - and this is one is almost expected in New Zealand but rare in Melbourne, London, or Boston, local/regional press running a feature story on the big-deal medical researcher in their midst.  In a tiny country where the hotshot youn researchers immigrate to Australia, Canada or the U.S., they do have to give their annual prizes to somebody.  So, I'm a little stunned by how harsh that all as.  Don't bother arguing, but if you can  Show me the kind of sourcing I described, I'll gladly change my iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2018 (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.