Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Surasky


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Russell Surasky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's already been substantial discussion of whether this person is notable by our standards, so it seems to be time to get a wider view on that. There's no in-depth biographical coverage of him in the article as it stands - the "sources" simply rehash tidbits from his website. He gets no hits on JSTOR, no hits on Scholar and no verifiable hit on Gbooks; he is not listed on Scopus.

It is claimed that he is certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine; attempting to verify this on the website of that august body takes us to this other website, where his name does not appear.

The creator of the page has been asked to disclose any WP:COI or WP:PAID connection to the subject, but has not responded; obvious is obvious, in any case. The draft was accepted in good faith by. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - you got to this nomination before me. Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NBIO, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Per the talk page, the article was created with a pile of non-RS sources, including the sponsored-content sections of otherwise-RSes. I went looking myself and could find zero biographical coverage actually about Surasky - a few (surprisingly few) RSes quote his opinions on things, and he goes on TV occasionally, but this is punditry and the biographical coverage is just what he says on his website - which, as you note, turns out to be quite difficult to independently verify. The thing he seems to do is to appear in crank sources of the sort that Wikipedia deprecates; but this doesn't rise to the level of being of note in RSes.
 * This is not a comment on Surasky's expertise as a doctor; I am noting that we don't have the material to justify a Wikipedia article.
 * FWIW, the creator did comment on the talk page on his relationship with Surasky: "I do not have a 'close relationship' with the subject. I am a colleague who knows Dr. Surasky from medical school & residency training." - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , that talk-page comment was added by an IP editor, and then messed around with by a different one to include a (failed) ping to me and to the creator of the article, . I've no idea whether that's the same editor or a different one; I am however sure that the Canes Stains account has not responded to my request for clarification. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the request: I do not have a COI. Also that IP editor is not me. Canes Stains (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears the page creator did respond to the request to disclose any COI at 's talk page. . –– FormalDude  talk  20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: Thanks,, that is indeed correct, and I'd overlooked it, my careless mistake. has denied any COI or PAID connection to the subject; as above, an IP editor has disclosed a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete David basically took any words I could have said away. Subject fails WP:GNG. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 01:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was very uncomfortable reviewing this page, and spent time on the talk page following the threads. I tagged it for COI as that request had not been answered and put it on my watch list to reconsider after a week. With all the edits and reverts taking place there were 2 days of no editing, and not much left in the body of the article. My gut feeling was the page was going to come here. As per above, David has captured it all. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think all that needs to be said has been said. Clearly this was not a good AfC acception by me (I will be more careful with my reviews going forward). All I can add is that the page should not be salted as the subject could always become notable at some point in the future. –– FormalDude  talk  11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur that he could reach Wikipedia-notability in future, just doesn't yet - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete He could potentially become wiki-notable in the future, but he isn't there now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2021 (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.