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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Ewing Mears[edit]

James Ewing Mears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Queried speedy delete "noteworthy?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Early American medical pioneer. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not sure what the rationale is for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep A notable exponent of early American medicine. This was perhaps not clear in the revision nominated for deletion, however, it was presented in the sources cited. The article was 47 min. old at the time of this nomination. I too don't understand the nom. rationale. James Ewing Mears was probably a very bad surgeon. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was six minutes old when speedied. Remember we aren't voting on the condition of the article at any given time, all articles start as a sentence or two. The minimal due diligence before speedy deletion is to a Google search to see if the topic is notable, independent of how it appears in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of opinion, Richard; plenty of 'votes' at AfDs are based solely on the condition of an article and some editors don't bother to search for sources. I participated at AfDs where even presenting sources in the discussion wasn't enough for some editors. For me, that was absolutely crazy and illogical, but now I understand a bit more: they don't care about any potential, they want to see an improvement of an article. And that's legitimate, however unconstructive it appears to me. Personally, I agree with your approach. Complicated start of this article is an example of clueless and uncollaborative editing, or perhaps a mistake, I don't know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and has numerous sources Peter.C • talk 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well referenced, clearly someone who made important contributions to American medicine. Seaphoto^Talk 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (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.