Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nieca Goldberg

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. Consensus seems to agree that notability is identified by the identified sources. No consensus for any other deletion reason post-cleanup. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nieca Goldberg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability Nicodemus (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Nieca Goldberg[reply]

Comment: When one subtracts this MDs media coverage one finds that she has done no more than many academic cardiologists in New York City. She has, to her credit, worled to better health care, but has no outstanding scientific accomplishment to her credit that would lift her above the usual academic physician. The neutrality of the article has been disputed previously with seemingly no attempt to correct it. Is being seen on Dr. Oz and cereal boxes criteria for a page on Wikipedia?Nicodemus (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Scientific accomplishment and Wikipedia notability are independent concepts. Dr. Goldberg appears to have done enough in the public sphere for women's health issues to be notable.David notMD (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The applicable notability guidelines are the General notability guideline and our notaility guideline for people and the "professor test". I have not yet been able to go through all the sources but almost all of them are from affiliated sources and it is entirely unclear what Goldbergs specific contributions are. There's much that say she's "a nationally recognized pioneer", but what she pioneered exactly is never mentioned. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had already removed content from Media section that was all based on very flimsy citations, and agree with Vexations that many the remaining citations need to be evaluated. Be aware that this was the first article the editor created. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this should have been speedied per PROMO. This is not even close to a decent WP article and should be removed from mainspace promptly. The editor who created this has been asked about COI and paid editing and said no; this is not credible. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a GS h-index of 10, there is certainly no pass of WP:Prof in a very highly cited field. WP:GNG is not passed and the BLP reads as if written by a PR operative. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep GNG is passed. I've cleaned up the article, removed a lot of puffery and added reliable sources. She is the author of 2 books, the first is very highly reviewed by several sources. She's a prominent figure in the media for her women's heart advocacy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing books contributes nothing to notability. The only reviews I can see are in a trade journal. Can you specify? Most of the sources are interviews with the subject and, not being sources independent of the subject, do not contribute to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

She's reviewed in NYTimes, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly. The fact that PW and LJ are trade journals doesn't make them unreliable sources at all. They're used in the library and bookselling industry to help professionals like myself make decisions about collection development. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After all that effort I'm still completely mystified as to what exactly her clinical innovations are. And we're keeping that in the lead? Vexations (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After cleanup she appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Vexations' concerns about "what exactly her clinical innovations are" are irrelevant: such innovations would be neither necessary nor sufficient to pass GNG or AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a claim repeatedly made in the sources, which in my opinion are promotional and should not be used if they keep repeating that claim without substantiating it. That reduces the number of valid sources to a point where GNG is no longer met. Still leaning delete. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR & WP:GNN. PROF is not relevant in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether there was a COI for the creator of the article (denied) is moot. That person has not edited the article since shortly after it was created in May 2017. There have been many revisions since then. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those revisions are an abysmal failure. The article is still a horrifically promotional piece with completely unsubstantiated claims. It's a disgrace.Vexations (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. Notability is established. AFD is not for cleanup. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed per David Eppstein.Emily Khine (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with David Eppstein here. --Krelnik (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. I fixed some language that read like a PR piece. StonyBrook (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2018 (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.