Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications

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 Merge and Delete. Already merged; no need to worry about GFDL issues, as this subpage was pulled from the main article. utcursch | talk 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications

This is a long list of works for a doctor E. Converse Peirce 2nd. I do not think there is a need to excessly emphasise his contributions by having such a long list of his work in a separate article. There are lots of scientists who write as many published papers as listed here, so this list is not special in itself. Resurgent insurgent 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with E. Converse Peirce 2nd, then Delete. Emeraude 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with E. Converse Peirce 2nd per Emeraude. Scienter 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few as we normally do , usually the five with most cites; I'll find the citation count if someone reminds me when this AfD is closed. He is too important to delete the article about him altogether.DGG 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: I personally think the entire E. Converse Peirce 2nd article could be nominated for deletion on the basis of non-notability. The page appears very much like a CV for Dr. Peirce (see Talk:E. Converse Peirce 2nd) created and heavily edited by User:FoxezandHedgehogs. Unsubstantiated claims regarding Dr. Peirce were inserted on cardiac surgery and Membrane oxygenator (primarily "paved the way for successful open heart surgery" - see my comment on Talk:Membrane oxygenator). The entire publication list was included on E. Converse Peirce 2nd (which made a very long page), so I moved the publications into a sub-page rather than delete any. I wonder if an electronic publication list is available for Dr. Peirce (given many of the publications were before the advent of (practical) computers); this publication list may have required a significant amount of paper based research to compile. A significant amount of work has been put into the page; I inquired regarding a personal connection, with a positive (although ambiguous) reply. Dlodge 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few but delete most and consider deleting main article. This list of pubs is way too long, especially in light of the subject's very weak claim to notability. His claim to fame appears to be playing an unspecified role in developing the "Peirce-General Electric Membrane Oxygenator", a term I can only find in papers authored by Dr. Peirce himself or by his colleagues at Mt. Sinai. I will post a notability tag on the Peirce page before nominating him for deletion. Google scholar shows no well-cited pubs but I'm not sure whether to trust the web, given that his arguably notable work was done in the 50s/60s. Irene Ringworm 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JSTOR does have records of a paper authored by him, under the name of "E. Converse Peirce, 2nd" (The Action of Pteroylglutamic Conjugates on Man, Science > New Series, Vol. 106, No. 2764 (Dec., 1947), pp. 619-621) so at least he did some work in this area. Older work tends to be accessible only from databases and journals which are part of the deep web. Resurgent insurgent 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Which is exactly why I haven't outright nominated him for afd. Irene Ringworm 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the above puzzling statements on the article talk page. I will comment further as appropriate.

delete this particular subpage.--an above comment is correct that we do not keep such extensive lists. All the necessary material for the main article has been copied over, and there is nothing left here worth keeping- The external source which has them all in PubMed since the 60s, and the printed Index Medicus before that. I cannot imagine why this subpage was ever started--a separate subpage for publications is not WP style. DGG 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well .... I don't think this article should exist; however, some of the content should be merged (or may have already been merged). Per GFDL, preservation of the edit history is required, so I don't know if outright deleting this page is appropriate. Then again, it really shouldn't exist as a redirect. Perhaps the edit histories can be merged and this article can be deleted? If this cannot be easily done, how about this:

Move this page to Edmund Converse Peirce (currently non-existing).
Delete this page as being an unnecessary subpage and having a trivial edit history.
Merge Edmund Converse Peirce into E. Converse Peirce 2nd and turn the former into a redirect tagged with {{R from merge}}.

That serves the three purposes of: (1) deleting this article, (2) conducting a partial merge, and (3) preserving the edit history as required per GFDL. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant edit history--it is just that the info was copied into this out of the main page. But i doubt the mechanics are important. DGG 02:49, 30 March 2007 (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.