Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Lathi
- 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Lathi's page seems to be a biographical self-promotional page about her practice in reproductive endocrinology at Stanford.
Nothing notable or exceptional in her achievements to deserve any mention in wikipedia.
No notable significant contributions to the field of reproductive endocrinology. No major discoveries (or new techniques) that have advanced infertility treatment in women.
Not on par with the level of Dr. Patrick Steptoe, or Dr. Robert Edwards (who are both in wikipedia), and were involved in the very 1st successful IVF trial.
If we were to put every person who went into medical school, and then specialized in an area where they publish articles and become associate professors... well, wikipedia would cease being useful and simply become an incredibly LONG and extensive database housing names upon names of physicians throughout the world. Wikiuserlee 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if expanded further I don't see there being any self-promotion here, as what you claim in extreme length consists of two short and terse sentences about her research. Your reasoning is long and unfocused, and for AfD, we usually try to keep our reasons for deletion to two-four sentences or less. This is your first action on the site according to your contribution history, so I ask that you build experience on this site before you take an article to deletion. Welcome to Wikipedia, but please learn how to discuss items in a short and focused way. As for the article itself, I do agree that it is short and probably needs extra cites and reasons for her notability, but it is certainly salvagable in its current form as a stub. Nate 10:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems on track for a successful academic career but (as is typical for starting faculty even at the best places) no real notability yet. —David Eppstein 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nate is right about the form of the deletion proposal, but I agree with David: no real notability yet. --Crusio 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An assistant professor with 19 co-authored publications in specialist journals doesn't yet seem to have attained the standards of WP:PROF. Serving on a single editorial board and winning a faculty teaching award are also insufficient to confer notability. Google Scholar shows that a couple of her papers have respectable citations (12) but there's nothing to overset the decision to recommend deletion. Espresso Addict 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Peculiar bias against Stanford and UCSF. Considering that they are by any count among the top dozen research-oriented medical schools in the US, I wonder at the agenda here. DGG (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as for the merits, Web of Science shows she has written 39 items in peer-reviewed journals, but only 6 seem to be more than abstracts or single case reports; none have yet been cited more than 8 times. That's not surprising, considering that they are almost all very recent. Not yet notable. But I still do not understand the nature of the nomination.DGG (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Shouldn't the person be notable first, before becoming a wiki entry? The process of being a wikipedia entry first in the hopes that they hopefully will become "future notable" characters seem to nullify the value and dilute the existing wikipedia biographies of the truly exceptional people. Also, my apologies for the extensive and long form. Wikiuserlee 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Wikiuserlee 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PROF.--Yeshivish 03:30, 16 September 2007 (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.