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. Steve Smith (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Boockvar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Nice man I'm sure. E Eng 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please give reason(s) as to why this article should be deleted. 344917661X (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability -- what did you think? E Eng 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as currently stands is referenced solely to affiliated sources and to databases, neither of which denote notability. Previously AFD's "keep" rested on accepting reposted press releases as legitimate coverage, which was an error. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cursory examination of, say, Google News shows one, maybe two hits, neither of which has enough depth to satisfy the requirements here. (At least, insofar as I recall my check from a few hours ago. Let me do one again.) Sorry, four. Three are press releases, and one is a mention in passing in some unknown newspaper. (I say that, and I mean that it lacks a Wikipedia article of its own.) So, simply put: just not enough notability for now. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 03:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history of promotional pressure i am not going to !vote to keep (btw, his main page at Northwell, which I did not use as source, as it is disgustingly promotional, says "Click here to view Dr. Boockvar's Wikipedia page." People at the Northwell have dumped truckloads of promotional slag into WP and have corrupted many pages here. Grrr.)

In any case I cleaned the page up and added some stuff in these diffs. You all can reckon if he passes the bar or not. He is a full professor, but doesn't heve a named chair, has about 130 papers per pubmed, and has i think made an impact in his field. but you all decide. Its marginal and there is a real dearth of independent discussion about him. I will not !vote keep. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking notability, even post make-over. I remember Greg. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom It's just a resumé, and Wikipedia is not a place to to place resumés or a promotional venue. Not Myspace. Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC etc. Lacks sufficient content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:00, 12 June 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.