Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Palmer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Page Melissa Palmer, M.D. (which is now a redirect to page Melissa Palmer) was prodded "Non-notable physician - only one ref in PubMed, very few hits on google scholar and one consumer oriented book|month = July|day = 19|year = 2009|time = 22:23|timestamp = 20090719222342" at 22:23, 19 July 2009 by User:G716 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Reads like a promotional CV, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like an ad. Subject could be notable perhaps, but this article is not.  Can I have an ad, too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This is an ad at best and I'd love to vote delete.  However, subject is considered somewhat notable based on her book. Needs rewrite. --DizFreak talk Contributions 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 10:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the subject does meet the criteria for notability. Should I take out the awards and honors, and add numerous citations in medical journals? I have such references, just didn't want to clutter up the bio with them. Please advise. Thank you. Voros1975 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) — Voros1975 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I removed the ad-sounding material (awards, honors). I also added many medical journal and medical article citations to an "additional references" section at the end. Dr. Palmer's book has sold over 300,000 copies since 2000 when it was first published; I've heard (though don't quote me on this) that selling more that 20K books per year qualifies the book to be considered a best-seller by the NYTimes. (I checked Nielsen's BookScan for details; but you have to have an account to log in). Voros1975 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC) — Voros1975 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please only !vote once. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the claim that the article is "ad-sounding" is unsubstantiated. To be an ad means to be promoting a person, product or service overtly and knowingly, and thus to violate WP:NPOV. Ideally, you'd want a more critical review of the person, which would include critiques of work and/or criticism or controversy. However, I have scanned the Web thoroughly and haven't found any critiques of Palmer or her practice.

Also, to be advertising-sounding, IMHO, means that promotional language and weasel words would proliferate. However, this article doesn't include promotional words and phrases such as "best", "most influential", "one of the top", "bestselling", etc. The only real promotional-sounding phrase is "one of the largest medical practices". That statement probably needs either citation or removal. But other than that, I see no real reason for the AFD flag. Theinclusionist (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * — Theinclusionist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have concerns about the images. The one of her in her lab coat is taken from her website, which has no copyright statements on it (and if I were the company that created that site, I sure wouldn't brag about it), thus it cannot be public domain without a permission.  The image of her as a bodybuilder is released as the property of the uploader, with no proof.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Images The bodybuilder image was already in Wikimedia Commons. I don't know anything about its permissions. Voros1975 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC) — Voros1975 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Addendum. I have also added a few more references, and cleaned up a bit more. Should I remove the images? I found the main image here:
 * Keep. Melissa Palmer is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.  And the content is verified by reliable sources.  Many individuals with long-standing Wikipedia pages have contributed less, of note, to the world than she. We want to avoid a scenario wherein Wikipedia comes to be viewed as having arbitrary, or inconsistent, standards for inclusion. Monkeyscantgethurt (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * — Monkeyscantgethurt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Moderate Keep. Well, I guess I'll chime in, too. Let me state first that I'm not a huge fan of the article, but of course, that in itself isn't grounds for deletion. I want to try to judge the article on its own merits. As for the pics? Isn't it obvious, that if there's no copyright label on the pics, the argument that Who then was a gentleman? raised is a non-issue? Anyways, that photo's all over the place on the Web - not just Google images. Whothencanbesaved (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * — Whothencanbesaved (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, that's not the way it works. Unless a page specifically says that it doesn't claim copyright, then we must assume that they are claiming copyright.  And just because other sites violate copyright, doesn't mean that Wikipedia will.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is: that the pic is on nationally recognized online journals, e.g., the American Journal for Gastroenterology et al, means: these orgs. have used the pic illegally, violating Palmer's copyright? C'mon!

My only point is: I think we as editors should do some digging to find out the facts ourselves, before just marking something for deletion or citing a problem that is really a non-problem. We hold the writers to high fact-checking standards; why should we be exempt? Look at all the places this image exists in the public domain?  

I'm simply saying, your argument is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) — Whothencanbesaved (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is find proof that the image has been released to a license compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Voros1975 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the pics in accordance with whothencanbesaved's arguments. Voros1975 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral but seriously, clean it up.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to last comment. I already cleaned up significantly. Can you be a little more specific as to what else you want me to change?


 * Delete. While it's possible a cleanup will solve some issues, establishing notability will require additional information. Lines like "Palmer's research has been cited in discussions of the Model for End Stage Liver Disease" in mainspace don't help the case.  —   AjaxSmack   00:36, 27 July 2009 (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.