Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Chan


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto Chan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Biography of radiologist in London, known mainly for the fact that he was sacked after whistleblowing. Of local interest only, wrote two books, no other claims to notability. JFW | T@lk  14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: same user also created ABC of Emergency Radiology and Ultrasound in Emergency Care authored by the subject. Should they be included? JFW | T@lk  15:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but delete the books. The whistleblowing stuff is of national interest - that's why there are references from the Guardian and Daily Mail, and there are a few more online if you look. However, all the personal stuff is irrelevant and the books not notable. Chris (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was the whistleblowing of national interest, considering he only spoke out on the practices of one hospital? JFW | T@lk  23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the issue of whistle blowing in the NHS is controversial and timely - try searching Google for articles in the BMJ about whistleblowing (sorry, would post links but don't have the time right now).Chris (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but evaluate for neutrality. There is a ton of news coverage in reliable sources about his revelations and his dismissal. However, the article states as fact that he was fired for his whistle blowing, which is his claim but is strongly denied by the hospital. His books seem notable enough (reviewed at BMJ for example) so I would leave them alone. Note that he is the editor of the books, not the author. The information about his personal life does not belong in the book articles and I will remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep Plenty of primary and secondary sources available to establish notability. Whistleblowers are few and far between.scope_creep (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-sourced and had plenty of news coverage. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 31 August 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.