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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Eastell[edit]

Richard Eastell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), People notable for only one event and Wikipedia:Attack page.

The subject, who is an academic, has received little if any attention in reliable secondary sources except for coverage of a dispute that led to his resignation as a research director at the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. Other than the dispute, the biographical information is taken from his employers or himself.

The dispute itself which was reported at the time and subsequently included in an article in Times Higher Education did not receive sufficient coverage for an article.

With such little information, a comprehensive article about Eastell and his career cannot be written and therefore it is an attack page.

TFD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep -- a surprising nomination, given that the subject obviously meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 and #8. Per this -- open the bottom section, "professional activities and memberships, he is a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (NACADEMIC #3) and editor of the journal Bone (NACADEMIC #8). Expand the article as appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's questionable whether either of these criteria apply. In any case, since you created this article 14 years ago, you have had plenty of time to expand the article. U can only assume that there are no secondary sources to enable you to do this. TFD (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like plenty of additional information was added in April 2017 yet Nomoskedasticity and another user reverted it, saying "We're not going to have more than half this article built on WP:PRIMARY sources.". Now you are quoting the same source, stating that the article could be easily expanded? AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The person's notability is marginal. The article as created and now comes off as more an attack article rather than a reasonable BLP. Thus if nothing else the article violates the do no harm tenant of BPL. Clearly UNDUE emphasis on "controversies" that don't justify the existence of the article. If the controversies are given appropriate weight the article becomes little more than a sub.

Springee (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I support delete, if we address the BLP issues associated with 1/2 the article being about accusations etc then I am far less concerned about the rest of the article being short. Springee (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NPROF. I see a large number of highly-cited articles on Google Scholar, and although many of them are also highly coauthored and this is a higher citation field, it looks like enough for WP:NPROF C1 to me. Looking at the fellowship in the Academy of Medical Sciences, it looks like a probably pass of WP:NPROF C3. Comment that the editor role at Bone is _not_ a pass of WP:NPROF C8, as this is only for an editor-in-chief. The president roles in (somewhat minor) academic societies might on the other hand be a pass of WP:NPROF C6. I agree with other editors that the coverage of controversies, while necessary, is over-long and over-detailed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Russ Woodroofe's analysis. As others note care should be taken in this BLP. Specifically, it seems likely that the note about a 2010 dispute is UNDUE in the controversies section; unless there is other coverage not summarized here, the event is minor and the mere mention in the section overstates it. . —siroχo 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have generally accepted FMedSci in the past as meeting WP:PROF and the citation profile looks excellent with 8 works above a thousand citations (though lots of coauthors). It would seem possible to tone down the criticism section of the article in order to reflect a more-balanced picture. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apart from high citability (which is high even for a high citation field), the subject received several awards from the scholarly societies listed in the "Awards and honours" section of the article (e.g. Frederick C Bartter Award from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2014; Society for Endocrinology Medal, 2004; Kohn Award, National Osteoporosis Society, 2004). I am not sure if any of these awards are sufficiently prestigious to satisfy WP:PROF#C2 on its own, but together with the citation record they are certainly sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For sake of openness, this is a page on my father (apologies for any mistakes in wiki markup - I am still new to it). Nonetheless, the subject's notability feels marginal (sorry, Dad) and the page was created by Nomoskedasticity for the sole purpose (as per the history) of attacking the subject by highlighting (at the time) an ongoing investigation in which he has since been found innocent of misconduct (all a contradiction of WP:SUSPECT). As has been noted elsewhere, and by many others, the "Controversy" really isn't one, yet even now the article focuses almost entirely on this (over half the article is the Controversy section and the associated references - not aligning with WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic"). Any other information about the subject is often swatted away - usually by the creator (Nomoskedasticity) as "Not verifiable by Independent Reliable Sources". AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — AFrozenCookieMonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Just wanted to thank everyone for their time, help and input - I feel the page is looking much more balanced now - I've changed my "delete vote" to a "comment". Many thanks! (Hope this is all ok). AFrozenCookieMonster (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment along these lines that it might be good if some established editors kept this page watchlisted against the possibility of a Controversies section ballooning up again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I do not believe that Eastell meets the notability guideline for academics, I find that guideline may violate policy because it does not require coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I opened a discussion of the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability (academics). TFD (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with others that while the article's subject may have just enough notability to be included based on their academic achievements, the article violates the "do no harm" tenet and does read more like an attack page. This applies in particular since the article's creator has repeatedly been doing their utmost to revert changes made to make the article more balanced, often without comment, until a public discussion about the article was started and the balance started shifting, and there is no guarantee that they won't recommence that practice once interest in the article on the side of the editors has waned. Seeing as the subject has not actually had any decisions made against him, the (still considerable) prominence of the "controversies" section seems rather skewed. Toxictigger (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Toxictigger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I concur with the arguments above that the relevant wiki-notability guideline is satisfied in multiple ways and that bringing the "Controversies" coverage into line can be done without deletion. Indeed, Russ Woodroofe has already made a start on that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:Prof, apart from the controversy. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Keep I agree this individual passes WP:PROF. I've removed the "controversies" section and folded into the main career section being careful not to place undue weight on untested allegations, and skipping over extraneous elements like the settlement paid to the whistleblower. BrigadierG (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easy pass of WP:NPOL as described above. There are other processes for the subject to request removal (and make the case that the subject is largely a low-profile individual). --Enos733 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (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.