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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Grossfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reads like promotion from WP:Single purpose account. Successful in her field, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, regretfully. It's true that female orthopedic surgeons are rare, and I'm glad she is succeeding in her field. However, she does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. WP:GNG is not satisified for lack of coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. WP:BIO is not satisfied for lack of any notable award or position. WP:SCHOLAR is close - she publishes quite a bit for a person in private practice - but her work is not heavily cited, and it leans toward presentations at meetings rather than peer-reviewed journal articles. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  I don't see anything in Google books or Google news, and nothing of interest on Google web.  The article has a great deal of unsourced info, such as the number of surgeries done last year, something that the topic "enjoys" (according to whom?), the entire first paragraph of "Careers and education", and the entire section "Professional memberships".  Only three of the "Select publications" do not say "presented", "preliminary", or "unpublished".  I'll defer to MelanieN's opinion above about the meaning of the remaining three journal articles.  The award is published on prnewswire, and is sourced from a site that says, "Our mission is simple: To help you promote and preserve your achievements", so fails WP:PROMOTE.  This also means that the material is self-published, so it is not a WP:RS.  In spite of being active in the local community, something I don't see is coverage in either Business First of Louisville or The Courier-Journal.  Looking at one of the sources given in the article shows that "Honeywick" (the same handle as the author of this article) has posted five press releases in the last month at [1].  Summary: Topic fails WP:N and WP:NOT.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not yet notable. Seems like the type to eventually get some coverage, at which time the page would be appropriate. But not yet. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of any coverage that would show notability at this point. The page can be recreated if that were to change. Ducknish (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Supporters of "Delete" - I understand that you likely know more than I do about wiki policies and guidelines so if delete ends up being the consensus on this... I would very much appreciate an explanation about why other similar pages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chalmers_(Orthopaedic_surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Spann_(surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lehman_(surgeon) are regarded as acceptable and appropriate. Struggling to see much difference here aside from gender. Insight would be helpful. Thanks.User:Honeywick —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is all explained in WP:OSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is lacking is explained in the links in my comment above, primarily significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. I'm sure she is a good surgeon, but this is an international encyclopedia, and it doesn't have an article about every good doctor in the world; they have to be a leader in their field in some way. And please don't make assumptions about gender; that may be a convenient complaint but it is not justified. I myself am female and involved in the medical field, and I would have LOVED to give a "keep" to this article, but the criteria just weren't there. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look at one of the articles.  In addition to being a surgeon, the man holds five world swimming records, 12 patents, and founded a hospital.  Admittedly, this could all be hype given that there are no inline citations and I haven't checked the references.  But a claim to having five world swimming records is easily verified.  In comparison, the award listed for the current topic, according to the press release which for this purpose we don't consider reliable, is given annually to 5% of 870,000 physicians.  Seriously, the editors in this AfD are the sweetest most well-mannered Wikipedians I've ever seen at an AfD, not a single one has (until now) linked to WP:COI.  While I suggested that getting an article in Business First would be helpful, the absolute minimum for WP:GNG is considered to be two "good" articles, and you'll find that since there aren't really any standards enforced at Wikipedia, AfD is often the result of caprice rather than reason.  For example, editors tend to turn up their nose at Business First.  For example, I've even seen a lengthy article in Sports Illustrated dismissed.  For another example, here is an example of a world-renowned personality who wrote a book translated into 15 languages who no longer has an article on Wikipedia.  Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. My own Google search turned up nothig promising. Fails all notability guidelines, including WP:SCHOLAR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WoS also shows very average citation results for a mid-career surgeon: 28, 23, 22, 18, 2, 0, ... (h-index 4). Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (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.