Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Switzer

Sam Switzer

[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)

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC; the two news articles relating to his death in a traffic accident aren't enough to demonstrate sustained coverage. Otherwise, it's referenced with primary sources of Switzer's own work. Klbrain (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The primary sources are enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC (. Three of them were single-author, invited scientific articles in the most renowned and widely read journals in their subspecialties (Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine for pathology, Circulation for cardiology, and The New England Journal of Medicine for the entire medical field), and had a substantial impact on the way medicine is practiced. Switzer was notable enough to have warranted inclusion even without his obituaries in newspapers, although those were the source of his personal information that was not available in the scientific articles. (Disclosure - I created the article.) Ira Leviton (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is for another person [1], that gets coverage... I don't see much for this Sam, we do have confirmation of his journal papers in Gscholar. I don't see that his work on the after effects in Hiroshima were notable, with only a blip when they were published (I suppose it's not a bad thing that we've never had to study it again), but I'm not showing notability. Appears to have had a low citation index, but it's been a while so studies on radiation after-effects likely don't get used much. I don't see that the awards won add much to notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Staff-written obituary in the New York Times is one of the gold standards of notability, particularly further back in time before we would expect citations of work to be digitized. As @Ira Leviton notes, he's a single-authored writer of a New England Journal of Medicine article, so clearly not getting his obits based just on a traffic accident. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]