Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Zoumalan


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Richard Zoumalan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article appears to be exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article, rather than as an advertisement. The subject of the article is a plastic surgeon who appears to have created a Wikipedia page only to aid their verification on social media platforms. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Citation profile is too unremarkable to pass WP:PROF in a medical field, and "Fellow of the American College of Surgeons" doesn't appear to be the top-of-the-top kind of recognition that WP:PROF asks for . "FPRS" actually refers to a one-year position at the University of Washington, not a highly selective honor for lifetime achievement like WP:PROF is about. Marquis Who's Who is not an award, for goodness' sake. One thing he did (coauthoring a study that found MRSA in face-lift patients) got a Reuters story, which the article spins into multiple stories by citing a syndicated copy of it in two different ways. WP:BLP1E applies even if we are extremely generous. In short, it's vanispamcruftisement, and it needs to go. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, other than that MRSA paper nothing even approaching notability. And that paper isn't enough.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:18, 7 February 2022 (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.