Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Kelly, MD, PhD


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas J. Kelly, MD, PhD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable physician. Article lacks sources to indicate notability. In addition, the article is not properly formatted. Tinton5 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete I was on the edge of deleting it when I was on new page patrol, but decided to give it a chance. Since others agree tho, Ill push it to the bin. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear Keep. This article has the smell of having been written by a public relations acolyte, which invariably leads to difficulties (please correct me if wrong). However with a GS h-index of 59 and being the head of a world famous laboratory, it is hard to see how notability could be improved, short of winning a Nobel Prize. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Strong keep per Xxanthippe and extensive citations, although the article does need some work. -- 202.124.72.74 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. He passes WP:PROF four times over (member national academy etc), and probably many of the other criteria as well, but the article is a bit of a mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I see a fair amount of reorganization and rewriting needs to be done, it appears to pass the WP:GNG test, plenty of citations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if there were nothing else, being director of Sloan-Kettering is enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Article needs cleanup and should be moved to a title not including the academic titles. --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, but the article title needs to be changed to Thomas J. Kelly (physician) or some such thing (there are other Thomas J. Kellys at Wikipedia, and Thomas J. Kelly redirects to the dab page Thomas Kelly). Also, the references need to be put in proper Wikipedia format. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd make it "Thomas Kelly (oncologist)", which is more exact than "physician". --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Formatting the page and some verification of this man's birth date are necessities. Thanks!Tinton5 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the article is apparently written by the PR department of ?Sloan Kettering who has submitted at least one other unsatisfactory biography, Simon N. Powell, who is not as notable as Kelly, but probably notable--the citations will need checking. . I've   started on it. I shall give the necessary advice, which is my euphemism for a pretty sharp lecture.   If PR staff are going to do this, they should at least do it properly and produce useful articles that do not require extensive further work.    DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (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.