Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Marcus

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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Marcus

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

Non-notable doctor who lacks RSes. Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG. DGG and SwisterTwister, this is a good article to compare with AfD at Kevin Pho. Delta13C (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable; none of the refs are substantially about her. The case for an article here here is much weaker than for Pho. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thank you for the ping, everything here is unconvincing and complete with the AAAS because it's not a genuine Fellow, only for a specific section. Simply too soon, SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is looks to me like canvassing, whatever the merits of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as I try to see as many such articles as possible, it's just a question of whether I see it earlier or later. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of the other editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non notable. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not arguing either way, but I'm not sure this is quite as clear cut as the above commentators note. She is one of 5/7 authors on reports of a clinical trial of bevacizumab (Avastin) which got 724 & 237 citations per GS.[1] Her single-authored opinion article "The silent epidemic—the health effects of illiteracy" in NEJM (2006) got 109 citations, and she's one of three authors on a study of informed consent & illiteracy (2013) which has 55 citations. There are also multiple pieces by her in several US newspapers/magazines eg, NYT, Huffington Post [2], The Atlantic [3]. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. When nominating editor writes, "Writes for Huffington Post blogs, but could not possibly meet GNG" as rationale for deletion, s/he should know by doing due diligence that the MD/MPH also writes for NYTimes, The Atlantic and has published a number of highly cited journal articles. She's also cited in a number of books per Google Books. She is most frequently published under "Erin N. Marcus". Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- could be a pass under WP:AUTHOR? Google books preview returns some citations to her articles: link. Some awards are listed, so in combination there appears to be some claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that she passes WP:AUTHOR, as her scientific work is not cited any more than many hundreds of other researchers. As far as I can tell, there is a paucity of secondary sources discussing her work, which leads me to believe that there is not enough coverage of her to produce even a basic biography suitable for WP. (CC K.e.coffman & Hmlarson.) -Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparent when you nominated the article. The purpose of an AFD is for more editors to provide input. Hmlarson (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the point of WP:AUTHOR since it was not cited in my nomination. -Delta13C (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a figure of public interest who has contributed to a number of widely read sources. I do not agree with those who think it is "too soon" or with the narrow academic criteria put forward by some of the above contributors. As the article is expanded, the case for "keep" will become increasingly clear. The New York Times attribution "Dr. Erin N. Marcus is a general internist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine" is sufficient for me.--Ipigott (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There has been canvassing for this BLP [4]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In fact, project notifications are in fact allowed and the standards for this state as such. As for the article, this is still a clear delete in my past comment because "interesting figure" is not what satisfies our policies and "narrow academic criteria" is certainly not the case because we ourselves have established WP:PROF is in fact the best coherent standard we have, selecting only the best academics and she's simply not satisfying it. Simply because the NYT mentioned she was an associate professor means nothing for us because it's not only a simple announcement, but an associate professor is in fact not actually tenured, instead an occasionally active professorhence not a major figure as stated above and also not satisfying our standards. If she was a major figure, there would exist actual substance for it, and like in the past, it would show she's a major figure in education, not the case here, and the Keep comments here above have not substantied themselves with the confirmation needed in substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Erin Marcus is not a top-level scholar based on her publication record, which can be evaluated here. A quick scan of related scholars on that site reveal many that have over 10k citations who are also at her Uni, and these people do not have WP pages; Marcus has 774 citations. It is a complete distortion to view this assistant professor as a notable individual. She lacks compelling coverage in third-party sources and does not pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. -Delta13C (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Off to a good start in a very highly cited field of research but, as yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and do not believe they pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. If she was the sole author of some of the cited articles, she would qualify, imo, but not as one of several authors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, Xxanthippe. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 6 February 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.