Talk:Scott Russell Surasky#Third Opinion Request

A dispute has arisen over whether the subject of this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, specifically WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO.

One editor maintains that the subject is not notable, while another asserts that recent improvements—including national television coverage (Fox News, Newsmax, OANN), major publisher authorship (Simon & Schuster), expert testimony in federal and state courts, and extensive coverage in reliable sources—satisfy the criteria.

Requesting a third opinion on whether the current version of the article demonstrates sufficient notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

Please assess based on the article as it stands now, not its prior version or deletion history.

--Neurodoc99 13:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:With respect, the initial response to the third opinion request did not engage with the actual question posed. The question was whether the *current* article satisfies WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO—not whether the subject was previously at AfD. That process evaluates earlier versions, not necessarily improved ones.

Key indicators of notability in the current article include:

• National TV appearances where the subject was the sole featured expert (Fox News, Newsmax, OANN)
• Publication with a major publishing house (Simon & Schuster)
• Accepted expert testimony in both federal and state courts
• Coverage in independent reliable sources including Fox Business, New York Post, The Hill, and Economic Times

--Neurodoc99 13:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like clarification on the basis for the full revert by User:Molikog to the pre-expansion version of the article, citing “improperly sourced in BLP.”

The reverted material was fully cited to national news segments (e.g., Fox News, Newsmax, Fox Business), published legal decisions, and a major publisher (Simon & Schuster). These meet WP:RS standards.

If there are specific concerns with individual claims or sources, I invite a collaborative revision process, rather than full reversion.

{{ping|Molikog}} {{ping|Bearcat}}

--Neurodoc99 13:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:: What's this got to do with me? Literally the only thing I've ever done to this page is remove it from a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have pages in it, and I've not had one single solitary second of involvement with even one word of what you're disputing. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yuvaank, @Alpha3031, @Ldm1954, @Molikog, @Malinaccier, thank you for your contributions to Scott Russell Surasky. I’ve requested a third opinion (WP:3O) and semi-protection (WP:RFPP) to support a fair discussion amid the AfD and promotional concerns. I’m addressing Molikog’s revert (06:30, June 23, 2025) of my edit (06:27, June 23, 2025), which described Surasky as the “sole featured expert” in media interviews, cited as “improperly sourced in BLP.”

My edit cited Surasky as the primary expert in: Fox Business’s Cavuto: Coast to Coast (May 2019, opioid crisis) [ref 7]

Tucker Carlson Tonight (Feb 2022, mask mandates) [ref 6]

Cavuto Live (July 2024, presidential cognition) [ref 12], cited in The Hill [ref 10], Economic Times [ref 11]

America Reports (Jan 2025, air pollution risks) [ref 2]

New York Post (2023, cannabis trends) [ref 9]

These full segments and articles focus on Surasky, meeting WP:SIGCOV. If “sole featured expert” lacks explicit verification per WP:V (e.g., other voices in segments), I’ll use “primary expert” to comply with WP:BLP. If OANN [ref 8] or Newsmax [ref 14, official channel] are unreliable per WP:RS, I’ll prioritize Fox News, The Hill, and New York Post. Can editors clarify which sources fail WP:V or WP:SIGCOV?

Addressing AfD concerns:

Yuvaank: “No SIGCOV” overlooks sustained 2019–2025 coverage, unlike the 2021 AfD.

Alpha3031: “Fake” reference claims are incorrect; Fox News videos and The Hill articles are verifiable [links in AfD].

Ldm1954: AAN/ASAM fellowships require peer nomination (AAN criteria), supporting WP:NPROF#C3. Hofstra faculty and Bridge Back directorship meet WP:NPROF#C1. This Book Will Save Your Life (Simon & Schuster, 2024) has coverage (e.g., The Brian Kilmeade Show), meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Tone can be edited per WP:NOTADVERT.

Questions:

Do Fox News segments and secondary sources meet WP:SIGCOV?

How can WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR integrity be upheld?

Thanks.

Neurodoc99 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)