Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U. Diane Buckingham


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

U. Diane Buckingham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable: her award are mostly student awards for residents, including the Presidential Scholar award which  "recognizes excellence among child and adolescent psychiatry residents." Not head of major national association, only chair of one section. Her inclusion in " "Changing the Face of Medicine " is good evidence for the  uselessness of   inclusion in that project as a criterion of notable . Google scholar search in several different forms of the name shows no published papers.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC; an individual with notable accomplishments is not in need of passing NPROF also. Here we have multiple independent reliable sources.  Publishing papers is not the only thing that makes a person notable, particularly when they are a field worker out in the trenches.   Montanabw (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is basically that Buckingham is notable because she's in private practice and because the article has, as sources, 3 websites, one of which at NLM solicits the general public and publishes their stories of their favorite female physicians. Are you kidding? Agricola44 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep two independent sources discuss in detail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep on account of GNG which remains valid even for academics/professionals. I'm concerned by the proposed rejection of "Changing the Face of Medicine" on the possibly circular argument that a putatively non-notable individual has been included there. Our notability guidelines do not suggest investigating why an individual has been discussed significantly in multiple, reliable, independent sources – it is sufficient that there is coverage. BTW: a couple of publications by the subject have been added since the nomination and I have found a third but, to my my mind, these are merely by way of formality. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes on general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes GNG. SarahSV (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Where are these sources which people are talking about? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WoS search "AUTHOR: (buckingham d*) Refined by: RESEARCH AREAS:(PSYCHOLOGY OR RADIOLOGY NUCLEAR MEDICINE MEDICAL IMAGING OR PSYCHIATRY) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI." shows 3 papers having the following citation counts: 19, 3, 0. Article is full of OR. I agree with Lemongirl942: there do not seem to be any solid sources. All-in-all the subject has a low citation history in a field in which even average profs are relatively highly cited. Agricola44 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC).
 * As noted above, this individual clearly passes on GNG.  Montanabw (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please see my response above. Agricola44 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Weak keep. The Black Enterprise source looks pretty spammy, and I don't see accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF: her citations are too low for #C1, and head of the psychiatry section of the National Medical Association doesn't seem enough given our article on that organization's admission of its "rather marginal size". But the NLM profile goes a long way towards WP:GNG: we don't have to agree with their selection criteria to recognize that it is reliably and prominently published, independent, and in-depth. This book provides another source (not as high quality, but enough to satisfy the part about having multiple sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page suggests that the individuals profiled at the NLM are chosen, at least partly, by the general public: The National Library of Medicine invites visitors to this Web site to help celebrate the achievements of women physicians. Please contribute a story about a women physician who has had an important impact on your life. Fill out the information fields below...Your story will become a part of this Web site and will be placed in the National Library of Medicine's archive. I was unable to find any other information as to how these NLM profiles are chosen, but given the fact that Buckingham is a private practitioner with a quite mediocre record of advancing the field, it is possible that untrained public opinion led to selection. Philosophically, I think we do have to be concerned about how sources arise. Indeed, this issue has been at the very heart of the Jacob Barnett debate: most sources on him are likewise prominently published, independent, and in-depth – they're just wrong, and we have succeeded in keeping them from the WP article, so far. Agricola44 (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete instead as I'm not finding enough to confidently suggest her needed independent notability and, while there have been some claims there is enough information here, I'm still inevitably not convincing of keeping a separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as this meets WP:GNG as well as the WP:NACADEMIC exceptions (possibly several of the criteria). Lack of citations in third party press ultimately leads to the weak end of keep though. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2016 (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.