Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Meara

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. Discounting the SPA IP !voters, there's no support for keeping this article. It might be possible to write an article about Meara, but this article is not it. Fences&Windows 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Meara

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is an ad. It began as an ad, created at Children's Hospital Boston by John Meara himself, though he farmed the writing of it off to multiple people. At that time, some two years ago, the article included only a c.v. and a bunch of external links to organizations this surgeon was once associated with. Since then, another editor has turned this resume into a promotional rant about health care quality and techniques used in maxillofacial surgery. ALL of the cited references are concerned with describing the practice of surgery in general, Dr. Meara is not prominently featured in any of them. I would have speedied this as a G11 due to overwhelming evidence, but this survived a prod some time ago. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jesus christ. This reads like the stuff they send me to donate money for charity. It is a gigantic ad. My sig says it best --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also delete all of the images used in the article. Blatant advertising. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure that whoever John Meara hired to write this had decent intentions, this is nothing further than a publicity stunt. All doctors have chosen a noble profession, but that doesn't make them all worthy of a wikipedia article...especially when it's shameless publicity. Each of the headings read like an individual article, and few of them directly have ANYTHING to do with John Meara. Put the content on the sites that they rightfully belong on and get rid of this.
Keep or Rename Under Notability (academics), working in collarboration with Partners in Health and Paul Farmer satisfies criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the present name*changed to delete--see below for the reasons. An article could be written, but the first step is to delete this one entirely.. Being " Plastic Surgeon-in-Chief of the Department of Plastic Surgery at Children's Hospital Boston.", one of the most important hospitals in the world, indicates recognition as having made a significant impact in his field, essentially the same as a distinguished full professor. Scopus shows 55 publications. Highest count 58, 33, 33 The article needs some drastic editing- I've started. COI is never a reason for deletion. There is a distinction between cleaving out the inappropriate parts of an article, & smiting promotionalism, and deleting all articles in which it appears. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Never, really? Not even when it has its own speedy deletion criterion? This article is a poster boy for G11 and it will remain a G11 due to the promotional efforts of a concert of Dr. Meara's employees, as proven by the edits of the anon IP who voted in favor of keeping. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the criterion is that they be both exclusively promotional and that it can not be removed without fundamental rewriting. But see my comment below. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with modifications, as this page provides useful information for patients, families, medical students and surgical residents in all the noted areas....cleft, craniofacial, global health. The site is referenced with appropriate articles and does meet the "academic" criteria in the "notability" section of Wiki. Pubmed has 52 peer reviewed articles under "meara jg" on these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One !vote per editor, please. I've struck out your second one since you already included a "keep" comment earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ the info on the global health and the relationship with PIH is valuable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. This is the third !vote from the same IP. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Children's Hospital Boston is mentioned, however, as are Los Angeles, Melbourne, etc. This is a valuable resource that is not only support by selected publications and references, but Partners in Health as well.

Also, Anetode: there are thousands of anonymous IP addresses editing wikipedia daily. When did a wikipedia policy form that you must have an account to share your knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) — 24.60.16.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Loaded question, ain't it? Tell me, isn't it against Harvard computer lab policies to "use of any Harvard University owned computer or network for private, commercial, non-Harvard business purposes"? Or were you instructed to do so in an official capacity on behalf of HMS or CHB? One must disclose these things, you know. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the present name. I am in absolute agreement with User DGG. This man has clearly made a significant impact in his field and I believe the information presented in this article is infinitely valuable to the general public, especially those in need of Dr. Meara's help. Most families have a hard enough time as is trying to find solutions for their children with these very specific ailments, this page presents an opportunity to give parents information on how to help their child. I also believe this page should be kept for international reasons as well. Sure, we may have heard of Children's Hospital Boston if we live in the States, but what about an International family that is searching for an answer for their child?? This page can only help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — 98.14.118.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I need to say that I consider most of the four above comments to be extremely irrelevant arguments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its role is to provide the information about appropriate subjects under appropriate headings. An article on a plastic surgeon is not the place to discuss global health in general, or the various areas of plastic surgery. It's a place to present his individual career and describe briefly the specific notable contributions he has personally made--describe, not elaborate on in the manner of a promotion for his projects. I continue to think him notable, but comments like these do indicate a strong promotional campaign. I am continuing to remove promotional material. I suggest another look, to see that even such articles as this can be improved. I admit that after rereading some of the support,& some of the contents, I had a strong instinctive desire to remove the article. But more rationally, I think it can be rescued. But if the present nonsensical support continues, it's likely that the consensus will judge it not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you there. The arguments are clearly not "promotional" and they are certainly relevant. His individual career includes global health, and various areas of plastic surgery. Not promotional, straight facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.118.74 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

the above response is really discouraging. I have never voted before to delete an article on the grounds of the manner of its writing & defense here, but I conclude that the lesson has to be taught somehow. I've changed my position to Delete, & I'm glad I didn't spend any more time with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I thought there was no end to your patience. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the areas of international health and craniofacial surgery this page provides information as well as references that supports the academic leadership role of the surgeon, CHB and PIH (in global health) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.35.103 (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.118.35.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ DGG edits quite good - page now succinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.35.103 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.118.35.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- One !vote per editor, please. I've struck out your second one, since you already put in a keep immediately above. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because he works with Paul Farmer and Partners in Health does not make him notable. Get rid of this blatant self-promotion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.26.55 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - (It's shame really. Trying to promote oneself doesn't make you a bad person, does it? We're all acting like we hate the guy because he's got a promotional article that shouldn't be on Wikipedia. But still. Not much to add to the reasons above, so I'm just going to go for a rare "Per" !vote; and here it is) Per DGG, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't hate the player, hate the game ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom, self promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did find one biographical piece about him in The Age: [1]. If there were enough more like that then I think he would pass WP:GNG. But he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, the rest of the press I found mentioned him only trivially in the context of something else, and the self-promition is a definite problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (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.