Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer (liver disease specialist)


 * 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. Delete and Salt. (Sound policy argument presented in favor of salting, no arguments presented against salting.) j &#9883; e decker  talk  16:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Palmer (liver disease specialist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable doctor. This article has been deleted and recreated under many names. There was Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer (doctor), closed July 12, 2009. Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer was closed July 27, 2009. It was userfied the next day Deletion review/Log/2009 July 28. Melissa Palmer, M.D. was speedy deleted August 29, 2009. Another DRV confirmed that deletion: Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30. The userfied but unchanged User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer was deleted on September 23, 2009. Many speedy delete requests have also been removed from the various editions. Numerous socks have been involved with these articles, and they appear to have been created by a now-banned paid editor for promotional purposes. At the moment, I can't say for sure that the latest creator is also a sock but editors can draw their own conclusions. I suggest that this be deleted and salted.  Will Beback   talk    10:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Dotty'sgoinglikethis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Routine CV of a successful specialist and researcher. Statements such as "nn of her research papers were selected for inclusion in Google Scholar" suggests subject has poor judgment in hiring PR staff and/or prefers to attract patients who are easily gulled by meaningless claims.  Special note: She's a 52-year-old heavyweight bodybuilder, so keep your guard up! EEng (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Can article title be salted, given repeated resurrections?
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads as naively written vanity page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. No specific notability. Seems like deletion and salting will be needed if recreated frequently. JFW &#124; T@lk  17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Diverse significant achievements (books etc.), all verified. Enough to stay in. Anyone agree?Dotty&#39;sgoinglikethis (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone disagrees Why don't you stop before you embarrass Dr. Palmer any further with these ham-handed efforts? Note to closing admin: Don't forget to delete the various redirects, listings of Palmer as "Notable graduate" of her high school, etc., as seen at . EEng (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of anything even close to meeting notability guidelines. It always amazes me when we get people such as doctors and lawyers and academics, who must have some degree of intelligence to have achieved their positions, making themselves look stupid, and so damaging their image, by insisting that they should be written about in an encyclopedia even when they clearly don't meet the requirements. If Dr Palmer can't even grasp this simple fact then I certainly won't be letting her anywhere near my liver. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The previous versions were deleted as copyvio, and then as making unsubstantiated claims. However, looked at objectively, she is notable, though the article would need rewriting to be free of the gross promotionalism. Her book "Dr. Melissa Palmer's Guide to Hepatitis & Liver Disease"" is in almost 1000 WorldCat libraries.  She is apparently moderator of the hepatitis forum at WebMD, a leading professional health site. She is Clinical Professor at NYU Medical School, one of the very highest ranking medical centers in the world (though Clinical professor is ≠ Profesor) But much of it is exaggerated:
 * She is, technically, head of Hepatology at NYU Plainview on Long Island, essentially because she is the only physician there: ; the building has a number of doctor's offices, she is the only one affiliated with NYU. Were she head of Hepatology at NYU, she would indeed be notable, but she does not seem to practice at all at the main hospital. . She is not editor of Practical Gasteroenterology, but just a member of the editorial board. --and it at any rate is an exceedingly minor journal, subsidized by drug advertisements to be distributed free to physicians. She is one of the three coauthors of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Nutrition Desk Reference, but the book has not yet been published. She has published some peer-reviewed papers: there are 4 in Scopus, all from her time in medical school., & they've been cited (one, where she was junior author,  "Effect of weight reduction on hepatic abnormalities in overweight patients, 322 times, (the others, 39, 31, 25).Since then, the other papers are her participation as one of a number of physicians in   drug trials, or articles in the journal  where she's on the editorial board, or papers for a patient-oriented magazine.   Some of the "Google Scholar" entires linked to in the article are not papers she wrote, but ones in which she has been cited.
 * The possible notability would be as author of her popular book. The book was reviewed in Library Journal--apparently twice--one regular, & one in a popular med books roundup).I would often be prepared to argue that this is notability, but not in this case, considering the repeated outrageous hype. The utter foolishness in thinking an article subject to this repeated discussions will do any possible good is, as Phil says, a little amazing. But it does not necessarily reflect on her as a physician: maybe she just has an incompetent PR agent.    DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG. Your scholarship is awesome. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete as subject is not notable. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanispamcruftisement. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:45, 30 December 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.