Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitrios Baltzis

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. Merely being referenced doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Baltzis

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

Not seeing sufficient independent coverage. Nearly all the sources are written by the subject in question (his CV, research gate, papers by him). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, thats not quite true. All sources from both hospitals, that newspapers article, it would not be published at all if its not true and written by someone else. Also, we have 12 sources in article now, so, if needed, i can add more. Subject is more then relevant. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering your relation to the subject in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None at all. I saw nice article in creation and added content and references. Its stupid to analyze in detail obscure subjects and delete quite normal, standard articles per a bit fake notability questions, while some other MASSIVE problems are not solved or answered at all, in far more notable and bigger articles. Also, just to point out, check other articles from Category:Diabetologists. At least half are in far worse condition then this one, witch now have 12 valid references for 12 sentences. People, i dont understand you really. Anyway, i really could not care less, i got entangled in this subject without any wish or intention, i am sure that this article have far more valid references then needed to prove notability then half of Wikipedia, so i really dont want to prove again and again something that's completely normal to me. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As the one who initiated the discussion at the talk and asked the nom to take a look, echo nom.And I am smelling some PAID/COI over here.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I involved myself with this over copyright violation content, for which I was taken to the edit warring noticeboard. After the text--from the subject's personal website--was approved for use, I maintained similar reservations as those cited in this nomination. My take is that there's COI here, as there always is when resume-like bios are posted to Wikipedia. The only saving grace would be if the published research was considered important enough to have been copiously cited by others, but it doesn't help that most of the articles list multiple authors, which tends to dilute the individual's prominence. In all this I cede to Doc James, who knows this particular academic landscape better than do I. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles and papers have not been well cited by others [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not?? With pages and pages of content? Doctors are not movie stars, this is more then enough to point notability. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heads of clinics are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doctor of international career, everything is properly sourced.Svetisrdj (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From where you were canvassed ; s.t. you returned to cast a !vote after about an year!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my point of view the subject is more then relevant, especially because there are 12 sources and there are dozens more that are available on internet. --Bandzimir (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)This user is the creator of the article, subject to this XFD.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing exeptional on him. No independent secondary coverage to support his notability. Scholarships, fellowships mentioned is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of scientists. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Chalk19 and .Now every head of a Diabetes Clinic in a hospital is not notable.It is not clear how the subject the notable.Lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and relevant, i dont think this one is for scrap. But it should be expanded anyway. --Axiomus (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. As stated above, nothing exceptional about him. -- Dane ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Dane. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about person who does not meet WP:GNG. A bunch of sources in the article, but none are WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. I call shenanigans on the keep votes and counsel discounting them. Ifnord (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and Harvard University Health Services are certainly reliable sources. That being said, the promotional reading of the article should be rewritten to be encyclopedic and neutral. PFAStudent (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources do not prove notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (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.