Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Lockshin

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. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Lockshin

Looks Like Advertising; Copied from creating user's page (possible advertiser); See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:WikiPRNYC Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rewrite if necessary to remove any actual copyvio, due to his absolutely clear notability: "Professor of Medicine and Obstetrics-Gynecology at the Weill-Cornell University Medical College " Full professor at one of the most important medicalschools in the world, with multiple additional honors as shown in the article. One of them is editor in chief of Arthritis & Rheumatism, the official publication of the American College of Rheumatology. Editor in cheif of a journal like that shows clear recognition in the field as a major authority. Acting director of NIH's National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. I wonder if the nominator has actually read the article, or WP:PROF, or is simply assuming that COI is reason for deletion. Ditto for the "per nom" comment. I've removed over a hundred of his minor publications, which are hardly necessary to show the notability, and do give a CV-like tone to the article. I could look for citations to the several hundred peer reviewed articles, but in view of the obvious notability shown by the rest, it hardly seems necessary. DGG (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I have nothing to add to DGG's detailed analysis. I cannot imagine that then om actually looked at this article before taking it to AfD, because notability more or less drips off the screen. Article needs major cleanup, but that is no reason to take it to AfD and waste our time. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notability obvious beyond question. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per notability asserted and shown. Send toWP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — (2x edit conflicts) I see neither a copyvio nor spam here. The publications listed easily establish notability of this scientist. MuZemike 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs tidying. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to DGG's detailed analysis, a quick Google scholar search[1] revealed not only that his research is highly cited (top few primary papers with 378, 280, 164 citations and many others >100 citations), but also that he is on international consensus committees, a clear sign that he is regarded as an expert by his peers. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG and Espresso Addict. I made some improvements to the article, but still needs more work. I will also leave a message to the article creator with some suggestions; that user has made a few improvements already, but the article still reads like a mini resume (among other problems).--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:34, 12 January 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.