Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Webb (medical physicist)


 * 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. Tone 13:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Steve Webb (medical physicist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article has made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted. LynwoodF (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears from just a quick overview to be noteable. Amortias (T)(C) 11:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, but the article could do with a trim. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding subject requests to delete a page, see WP:BIODEL and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citation numbers clearly fulfill WP:NACADEMIC. Deleting per request is not a thing when the subject is this notable. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 20:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Does seem to be sufficiently notable. The subject can request alterations to the article if need be on the talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Do we have a clue what his objections are? It seems like a fine, if short, article. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Prof. Webb was reasonably happy with the article as it was for a few years, but more recently some material has been removed, probably with the intention of wikifying the article, and he feels it does not do him justice. LynwoodF (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comparing your 2014 version with the version just befoe the AFD indicates very modest changes indeed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Seriously consider deletion. I sympathize with the subject if he wishes the article to be deleted, because this is not a very good way to present the career of an academic. The "awards" section clearly constitutes undue weight; those should all be mentioned in a single sentence. The personal information is all cited to an article that is no longer available from the source. Remove all that and there isn't much of an article. I agree that Dr. Webb is notable, and a decent article could be written based mostly on his publications and scientific citations of his work, but this is not that article. If it is kept it should be reduced to what is cited to available sources, which is basically the first two sentences, one sentence stating that he is former editor-in-chief of Physics in Medicine and Biology (but is not currently as the article states), and one sentence summarizing the awards. blameless  02:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have rather drastically trimmed the article much as suggested in ' comment. It would be helpful to know whether Dr. Webb objects to the article's existence or only to its contents. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this trim looks good to me. I have added the Barclay Medal which was the only major thing missing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Prof. Webb is not entirely opposed to the existence of an article, but felt that the article as it was when he asked me to request deletion did not do him justice. I am not a physicist and do not know my way round the literature of the discipline, but I am aware of his work on radiation therapy, including intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapies. Some of the sources cited seem to have disappeared, but I wondered if we could at least put the awards into the infobox. Perhaps there is a scientist among you who would know what is regarded as customary in this area. LynwoodF (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Including the awards would be within normal practice so I have added them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . LynwoodF (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep After reading current recent versions of the article, I believe this person is notable and that this encyclopedia should have an article about him among its 6,155,387 (at this moment) articles. Discussion about what content should be included or excluded should take place at the article talk page. I tend to favor more lengthy and detailed biographies (within reason) if the content is well-referenced. If notability was borderline and the article was an ongoing target of defamation, I might come to a different conclusion, but that does not seem to be the case here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - No valid reason offered for deletion of article on this notable subject. We can discuss improvements and criticism on the talk page of the article. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The original reason for deleting the article is in fact not valid (the subject wants it deleted) - I can't see any other reason to delete it, and the subject seems notable, considering his publishing record and awards, so I think its fine. I do hope Mr Webb is happy with it, and its good he contacted us to suggest improvements. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2020 (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.