Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Langham


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Langham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability; not notable LT910001 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete-- fails WP:ACADEMIC. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? GScholar seems to indicate an h-index of over 40, with well-cited papers spread over nearly half a century. PWilkinson (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, currently we have only one source which is one of the author's papers ... if we keep this bio we definitely need more than one source, ideally with some being from independent sources. Lesion  ( talk ) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on, but WP:Notability notes that just publishing doesn't make you notable, you need an independent claim to notability. LT910001 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep -- The problem with the article is that it is a stub, passing over 50 years of his life in silence. As indicated there are a lot of G-scholar hits, the top one cited 158 times, and several well over 60 times.  This suggests that he was an important academic.  I found an obituary, which added little.  My guess is that he was born about 1925, and was active as an academic and ophthalmologist from about 1947 to 1995.  The book, published four years ago is thus the culmination of a life's work.  Publishing such a book in his mid-80s is again unusual.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (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) 00:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, that he published numerous articles does not make him notable ... notability not met. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I really wanted to keep this article - he was head of research for the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins for three decades. And his article citations are pretty decent. But here's what convinced me that he was NOT a notable academic: normally the passing of an important academic would get at least a little notice, by newspapers or professional journals or at least his academic home, but Dr. Langham's passing attracted no notice. The obit found by Peterkingiron is a paid obituary listing; apparently not even his hometown paper chose to write an obit about him. Even more striking, the Wilmer Institute itself did not issue any in-memoriam or press release about his death. Furthermore, almost none of the information in the article is verified; all we have is a short, paid (so not independent) funeral announcement. Basically everything in the article is OR. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2013 (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.