Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Copeland


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Copeland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically an advertisement for her practice and hr line of skin care products.  DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * change to weak keep from keep (see comments two paragraphs below) - this article went through three rounds of AFC, so it's had its share of eyeballs. I, like  DGG above, was a bit troubled by the skin care info, given that I'm unable to find any media coverage indicating notability, so I just deleted that section.  Feel free to add info back that can be sourced showing notability.  My keep vote is based on Dr. Copeland's medical credentials and published papers.  Also, I'm interested in the statement that Dr. Copeland was the first woman to get both medical and dental doctorates from Harvard.  The Mt. Sinai bio [] confirms the dual degrees - just not that she was first - so if this can be independently confirmed it bolsters her notability significantly.  This could also warrant a mention on those colleges' articles.  I commented on the COI tag on the Talk:Michelle Copeland page, and also added Dr. Copeland to the Mt. Sinai article's alumni section, since I noticed no other subject articles linked here. It should have been tagged as an orphan.Timtempleton (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed by the publication record. Most plastic surgeons publish a fairly large number of fairly trivial articles--according to Google Scholar her citation count is 68, 47, 47, etc -- in biomedicine we usually want to see at least one paper with 100 or more. , For the popular books, they are in 182 and 124 libraries, which is trivial in this field. The two degrees is not all that uncommon for facial surgeons, and represents more perseverance than academic distinction. I don't think it adds anything at all to her notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm taking DGG's points into consideration and changing my vote to a weak keep from keep. He seems more familiar with the medical field than I am, particularly as it applies to the notability of dual degrees.  If the sourcing (not just for the skin care line) can get beefed up to demonstrate notability, I could be convinced to go back to a keep from weak keep.Timtempleton (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This strikes me as a c.v. rather than an encyclopedia article. Sources showing in the footnotes don't get the subject over the notability bar. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. From DGG's comment the books and the publications are the usual amount for the field. I guess WP:TOOSOON applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (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.