Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Demir

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. Sandstein 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Demir

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

Promotional and non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF--there is one paper with 81 citations published when he was a post-graduate student, otherwise the highest number of citations is 17. This is considerably below the stand in a heavily cited field like biomedicine. Does not meet WP:GNG, outside of the NY Post, all the references are local PR based articles mostly celebrating a very unimportant Guinness record. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author and I agree the current format is promotional. He still is notable with all the publications, I don't know what you are searching through but on pubmed he is cited widely. Maybe consider rolling it back to my original article? 4.15.15.126 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find very little coverage of this doctor, and nowhere near enough to pass WP:GNG, and DGG's assessment of his citation count is spot on, showing that he doesn't meet WP:PROF either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are mostly primary and there is too little claim of significance or notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (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.