Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Kaye

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Kaye

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

Delete. Minimally sourced biography of an anaesthetist, whose only apparent claim of notability is that the anaesthetists' professional organization named a couple of things after him following his death and the fact that a non-notable local history museum holds some of his former knick-knack collection. There's really very little here of any substance beyond that, with the article otherwise taken up entirely by routine biographical details that have no bearing on notability whatsoever. The two sources cited here are just being used to support his date of birth and the existence of the museum collection, rather than anything that might get his career over the notability standard for medical professionals, and both of them are incomplete citations (my favourite: "Volume 17, Melbourne University Press", but failing to specify Volume 17 of what), making it nearly impossible to actually verify whether he's the actual subject of either source or just namechecked within it. Further, this was overwritten almost a year ago with a biography of a completely different person whose claim to encyclopedic notability was even weaker and even more poorly sourced than this, yet it took this long for anybody to notice the fact -- which says something about the amount of traffic this is actually generating. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced and substanced much better than this, but there's just no meat here in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nominator's comments. Old articles like this keep floating to the surface - it always surprises me that they survive for so long with such weak references! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't get past the hurdle. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough to establish notability. From [1]: "he edited Practical Anaesthesia (1932), the first Australian textbook on the subject", caused the establishment of the Australian Society of Anaesthetics" largely as a result of his lobbying", "He collaborated with Robert Orton and Douglas Renton in Anaesthetic Methods (1946)", was elected a fellow of the faculty of anaesthetics, Royal College of Surgeons, ASA museum named after him since 1956. This [2] add that he published over 200 articles and books, received the Orton Medal in 1973. This [3] from US National Institute of Health is another source to establish notability. Here is another online biography [4]]. Note that these online biographies have themselves bibliographies of sources which could be used to improve this article. AFD is not cleanup. The article is labeled as a stub and needs much improvement. But the topic is notable. MB 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, enough to establish notability [5]. This is the "Volume 17" that was mentioned in the original sourcing - took a few seconds to establish with a Google search. Clearly notable in the anaesthetics field, as one of its pioneers in Australia in the 1930s. Also one of the founding members of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists. Bearcat I cannot see any evidence in the page history of the "overwriting" you mention - do you have any diffs?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2017 (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.