Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Sack


 * 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 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert L. Sack

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Being certified is not an award, nor does it require any notability or contributions to a field of study. Board certification is merely an exam that any physician in any one of numerous fields takes in order to continue practicing. As such, it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article is a board-certified physician who has published some original research in an academic journal. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 13:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert L. Sack has been one of the best-known and most-quoted experts in the field of circadian rhythm, chronobiology and sleep research from the early 80s to today. He has authored dozens of research papers, reviews and chapters in books. I shall try to find more references.  --Hordaland (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if more is needed. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @Hordaland, while Dr. Sack sounds admirable, the inclusion of all physicians of his level of accomplishment might admit 10,000 or more bios, of US doctors alone, to Wikipedia. Is my understanding of the significance of Dr. Sack's medical innovations, or role in the political or social spheres, or presence in the media, etc., insufficient? mcgees.org (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You think there are 10,000 US doctors who are pioneers and leaders at the forefront of their medical fields? That's an awful lot of fields. We're not talking about his medical qualifications, we're talking about his media coverage - which as I've demonstrated, is extensive. If other doctors have that level of coverage then yes, I don't see why they shouldn't have articles too. It's nothing to do with qualifications. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [Deleting and withdrawing my reservations, given research provided by other editors] mcgees.org (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Web of Science lists 10 papers that have been cited more than 100 times (highest cires: 453 - 386 - 215) with an h-index of 33. Article is pretty bad, though, I agree. --Crusio (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; passes WP:BIO. I have found articles on him and his research in The New York Times, the South Bend Tribune and The Oregonian, along with another article from The Oregonian reporting that he'd won an award. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the article does not yet demonstrate that he passes the basic criteria of WP:BIO, doing a quick search through Google news provides a lot of articles. Only 15 if you use the link above that includes use of his middle initial, but remove the L and you get a lot more (many are not him, but enough are). And since we judge the topic itself and not the article, he seems to pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I withdraw my reservations, given the above research. mcgees.org (talk) 08:17, 1 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.