Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Hart (Neurologist)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hart (Neurologist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article makes some limited claims of notability, but they do not seem to meet WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 13:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The medical obituary which I've added as a reference into the article describes him as "a nationally recognised expert" who produced "impressive academic results" and "delivered prestigious invited lectures in the UK and overseas". AllyD (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Munk's roll article will describe the deceased in a positive, obituary-type style. He was a hard-working specialist. None of his achievements are sufficient to qualify for WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several users have expressed concerns about notability. A quick scan through the page history will show that it was initially made speedy, then PRODded and a notability tag applied. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the cited bibliography is trivial for establishing notability, I would consider thatBMJ coupled with his record of high impact publications (three with >100 citations as first author) should suffice.Novangelis (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The citation data is fully sufficient to show notability according to WP:PROF. High citation counts are more frequent in medical science than elsewhere, but even so this is a record showing him an authority in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.