Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Linder, M.D.


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Linder, M.D.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable surgeon lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 05:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 05:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some sources. He seems to be a rather famous plastic surgeon. Silver  seren C 05:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unfortunately none of the references or links are non-trivial coverage of the individual. They are mostly sound bits from the doctor in the article.  In addition, being "famous" is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia and is not listed in WP:BIO.  ttonyb  (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentThere does seem to be a lack of notability. Apart fropm one mis-referance (I have now removed) is there any evidance for news coverage?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentAccording to American Way magazine, Linder is "one of the highest-regarded revision breast surgeons in the world." He is additionally a book author for consumers and has written many technical articles about reconstructive and plastic surgery. Moreover, he is active on the International scene, seeing patients from about a dozen nations while appearing on many non-U.S. television programs including BBC, BBC America, Azteca America, CBS Germany, New Zealand TV, Univision.com, and others. So I humbly ask: how is he not notable? Comparing his bio to other plastic surgeons listed on Wikipedia, one thinks he is in perfect company. The Wiki section on notability seems to agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffshrEddy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to supply any links to sources that would verify that information, such as the American Way article, and other things? Silver  seren C 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He was mentioned in an episode of notable news television show, giving his expert opinion.  D r e a m Focus  04:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I fail to see how this is non-trivial coverage of the individual that supports WP:BIO. Can you help me see what I am missing?   ttonyb  (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lean Delete: I am just not seeing significant coverage of him.  He is quoted in a few news articles, but none are about him.  Without seeing the article mentioend by OffshrEddy in American Way (magazine), which is filled with lots of crud, I can't credit that one.--Milowent (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment From the Wikipedia page on notablity: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It does not say references must only be about the subject. I count 64 international T.V. appearances going back to 2002, with 14 education segments on The Learning Channel and Discovery Health. The whole point of the listing is that Linder is currently appearing monthly on T.V. somewhere worldwide and people wonder who he is. About American Way, I beg to differ; it is filled with the best that American journalism has to offer. (Those who are interested can read the piece in question at: http://www.americanwaymag.com/beverly-hills-robert-kotler-stuart-linder-american-society-of-plastic-surgeons-1) I must admit to some puzzlement; editors ask for independent, third-party verification and then reject it out of hand as insignificant. Perhaps if I could locate a few Discovery Channel or TLC (The Learning Channel) segments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffshrEddy (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – This has to be one of the most imaginative arguments I have seen to save an article – flawed, but imaginative.  Unfortunately, "received significant coverage" means being the on the receiving side of the coverage, not being part of the coverage.  Additionally, much in the same way the number of hits a website gets is irrelevant to web notability, popularity is not part of the notability criteria.  With regards to the sourcing, please read reliable sources.  ttonyb  (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - He's written a book and is an author on a few scholarly articles, but I don't think these are sufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC. Yes he's mentioned in a few articles here and there, but I don't think this is sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. I did an ISI search on him, and it seems his scholarly papers are only cited a handful of times. If I saw evidence that his book is critically-acclaimed, widely cited, or a top-seller, I'd reconsider. However it is currently #1,549,724 in Books on Amazon.com. If the article is kept, I hope those voting keep are willing to address the many unfootnoted claims in the article. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentI observe many of the other plastic surgeons listed in the [American Plastic Surgeons] have written no book at all. Try these: Linder explains the body shaping procedure for MWL (massive weight loss) patients: . Linder explains to abc news how implants could be the next terrorist threat: . Linder explains to a Spanish-speaking audience the difference between silicone and saline breast implants: . He tells the L.A. Times how business is off: . After that, Linder tells the New York Times how ads can -- and cannot -- be used by surgeons: Again, the nutshell of notability is the person "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Would you agree that American Way Magazine, ABC News, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Univision.com and others satisfy that requirement? Moreover, nothing in the notability requirements dictate a subject's book to be critically acclaimed. As to the reputation of American Way Magazine, you be interested in taking a peek at the blog of the author who is a Columbia University School of Journalism grad and also teaches there. [www.college.columbia.edu/cct/coreblog] Do you suppose he is full of crud, too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffshrEddy (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said anyone was full of crud, and such comments make a reasoned debate difficult. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as not sufficiently notable. David V Houston (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you, um, elaborate a bit? Silver  seren C 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sure, per PD Cook, ttonyb above. Should have said that.  Sorry.  David V Houston (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:N and WP:GNG. This is a well-sourced article on a notable in my opinion person. PamelaBMX (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  first, fails WP:PROF. on the basis of the citation record in Scopus: 4 papers, citations, 10, 9, 4, 1. Not a notable scientific record, in any branch of medicine, nor does he have any significant leadership position  Second, fail WP:Author. one book only, "The Beverly Hills shape", in only 11 WorldCat libraries. published by  LifeSuccess Publishing., a publisher of promotional material: their web page reads: "We show you how becoming a published author will boost your business." I do not accept an  argument that he is more notable than other plastic surgeons because he has written it.. As for GNG, the various interviews he has given are similar publicity attempts.  The NYT item is not about him: he is quoted in one paragraph of a long story giving an explanation of why he has posted 11 of his operations on YouTube. This sort of media coverage is advertising, not notability. I consider this article almost a speedy  G11, for its only purpose is, similarly, publicity.  DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Being listed as a "top surgeon" isn't notable enough, and that's the only claim to notability made. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The "full of crud" comment was in response to Milowent's reaction to American Way Magazine. Where one person sees publicity, another sees education. As you may be aware, there is tremendous interest in cosmetic plastic surgery so the media seek out and interview, ah, notable spokespersons. The actual purpose of the book is for potential patients to read before they come see him. Many plastic surgeons have done that because it allows for a more complete educational process before surgery is even discussed. The book even tells how to locate and find other plastic surgeons so the patient will have spoken with three surgeons before deciding on surgery. That doesn't sound quite so greedy, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OffshrEddy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not seeing significant coverage. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted above, the publisher appears to be a vanity press. It's website is directed to soliciting potential authors to promote themselves through publishing, not directed to consumers. Furthermore, there's no context in the article for judging the weight of the "awards." Are they competitive? How many people receive them? Whate are the criteria? Just googling, their seems to be doubts about the reliability of the Consumers Research Council of America's awards: http://www.complaints.com/2008/july/28/National_Consumer_Research_Council_of_America_179385.htm and http://ffscambridge.com/blog/post/ignore_consumers_research_council_of_america_guide_to_americas_top_financia/ - so that could be a promotional tool as well. The footnotes pretty much just establish that he's a physician who actually exists. The external links section at least has something. However, I don't think appearing on Extra is sufficient by itself. I think there needs to be more to establish that he's a widely cited expert. Notably, things that I might give weight are mentioned in the deletion discussion without links (i.e., without any proof). So I vote to delete. (But if it's kept "M.D." needs to be dropped. That's contrary to article naming conventions and comes across as puffery.) --JamesAM (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the external stuff (such as the Louis Theroux artciel) does not establish notability as its not about his greatnerss as a plastic sugeon so much as a program about plastic sugery that features him. nor is he featured as an expert as such but just a peice of comentry about a sub culture. Is tehr any evidacen he was featured to a greater extent then say Dr David Amron. At least the Extra artciel seems to quote him as an expert. The seatle times artciel ius again about plastic sugery not Dr Linden, nor does it seem to quote him as an expert but as some one affected by economic turndown.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Many media outlets use linder as an expert. For instance, note how the focus is on the patient in this clip from The Learning Channel: Two more can not be incorporated into the article because his marketing company captured television appearances and made ads from them. In this one, linder repairs another surgeon's bungled breast surgery on an adult entertainer:  In another, linder tells a Las Vegas T.V. station how and why breast implants can go bad:  It's totally unscientific on my part but I would say linder is called on by the media far more than David Amron. If you look at the other surgeons in the American Plastic Surgeon section, you'll see linder fits right in with the ones listedOffshrEddy 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please explain how this supports any of the criteria in WP:BIO. As stated above, "received significant coverage" means being the on the receiving side of the coverage, not being part of the coverage.   ttonyb  (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:BIO does not say the subject must be the entire,sole subject of the coverage or exclude those who are only part of the coverage. Again, I quote the passage: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Moreover, the very next sentence in WP:BIO regarding fame does not say a person who is famous or popular must be excluded; it only says that such considerations are secondary. It would appear that many Delete votes have taken it upon themselves, for whatever reason, to define beyond logic the term "significant coverage." I'm reminded of Bill Clinton remarking during his impeachment trial, "...well, it depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."OffshrEddy 23:12, 28 April 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.