Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard K. Olney

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Olney

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

Seems hardly notable as per Wikipedia:Notability. Not sourced except for one obituary-type article in a US newspaper. kashmiri 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one obituary-type article in The New York Times. Here's the Los Angeles Times. Dru of Id (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Notable scientist who waranted obits and other articles of interest during his life in several major newspapers (to add to the above two are major newspapers in San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Boston among others. He was also featured in numerous science journals such as this Neurology Today article. This Google News Archive search yields multiple references. This Google Books search also shows he has authored books on neurology and that he is cited by others in their publications. I don't see how this person could even remotely be considered a good candidate for deletion. Given the ready availability of sources on the internet, I do not feel the nominator did due dilegence in source searching prior to nominating it at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's certainly sufficient material for an article, so passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The nominator has not only failed to do even the most cursory search for other sources, I doubt if they have even read this biography. How is an "obituary type article" indicative of non-notability? This is not a paid death announcement in a local paper. It's an authored obituary in the New York Times. That alone is indicative of notability. However a cursory glance at Google News shows that authored obituaries also appear in multiple major newspapers in the US including the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (and syndicated in many more) which describe him as a "leading researcher", "a pioneer of ALS clinical research and teaching", etc. Not only that, he was the subject of multiple articles during his lifetime, especially when he himself was diagnosed with the disease. [1], again in major papers: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc.. Not to mention this lengthy feature on him in Neurology Today, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology, who subsequently named a a fellowship in his honour, and the The American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine which gave him its Lifetime Achievement Award. I suggest this nomination be withdrawn. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per the extensive sourcing and demonstration of notability supplied in the previous comments. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- leading researcher whose life was covered in the most major of newspapers. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment. I have gone through the available obituaries - many clearly based on a single source - and it is clear that this biography does not satisfy a single criterion listed on Wikipedia:Notability (academics). (1) His "significant impact" (in research on ALS) was not mentioned or demonstrated; (2) Not satisfied; (3) Not satisfied; (4) Not applicable; (5) He did not even have a professorial title; (6) Not satisfied; (7) Not demonstrated; (8) Not satisfied; (9) Not applicable. As a matter of fact, authoring ~50 research papers in a lifetime, while definitely a form of contribution to the science, is not necessarily an outstanding achievement compared to countless other researchers. A quick Pubmed search for "amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" or ALS returns over 17,000 articles published in the last few years alone! And this is only about a single rare condition. If we had to include all researchers who wrote 50+ articles on a given medical condition (frequently having professorial titles and distinguished membership), Wikipedia would have to triple its volume: Pubmed adds to its database around 500,000 medical research papers every single year!

@4meter4, I understand you are the author of this article - but honestly, I could not see anything special about this particular researcher or his unique contribution to the science (you don't perhaps mean that proposing two clinical trials, unsuccessful anyway, is an achievement?) that would warrant a separate Wikipedia entry. Sorry to be brutal. Delete kashmiri 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck-through your "Delete" and changed it to "Comment". As the nominator, you are already presumed to have !voted "delete". You don't add it again. Voceditenore (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead for the New York Times obit calls him "a leading physician and pioneer in clinical research". There's hardly a more notable description of a person's life to be found in medical science. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should we understand by "leading physician"? Leading who? A dog on a leash? You can be a "lead consultant in neurology" at a given hospital, but not a "leading physician" everywhere. Wikipedia should be talking substance, not journalistic blah-blah. "Pioneer in clinical research" - is there any serious research being done by not "pioneers"? IMHO, if you do clinical research, the first requirement is that it has never been done before. — All this is not against Dr Olney who in all probability has brought very valuable contribution to the clinical research of ALS, but about demonstrating notability of that particular researcher in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In my opinion - but I am not an ALS researcher - his contribution does not differ from one of his countless fellow researchers, authors of ~17,000 articles on ALS.

BTW, IMHO if my contribution here is a "comment", so it should be the contribution of the original creator of the article. kashmiri 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; the topic passes WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 23 June 2012 (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.