Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Marshall Hyde

: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 speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material (G4). Similar material has been deleted in the past following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. The current page adds no new evidence of notability nor does it address the deletion rationales from the previous AfD discussions. Further recreations of this article which meet speedy-deletion criteria (see G4) can be tagged as such rather than going to AfD.

If there is interest in recreating an article on this individual, then the proper process would be to go to deletion review and present evidence that he meets our notability requirements for individuals or academics. The prior discussions linked above have determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an effective argument at deletion review would probably focus on new or previously unmentioned evidence of notability. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Byron Marshall Hyde]]=

:{{la|Byron Marshall Hyde}} ([{{fullurl:Byron Marshall Hyde|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Marshall Hyde}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

WP:RS, not notable, deleted before RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Author of widely cited [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22BM+Hyde%22&btnG=Search publications] and [http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AByron+Hyde&fq=ap%3A%22hyde%2C+byron+m%22&qt=facet_ap%3A books]. His work in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has been well recognized . Has been quoted in multiple other news articles. ([http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,970104,00.html], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F36099E2FA84A53&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=GB&p_theme=gb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF84F1E33DBC2F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM], [http://www.timesofmalta.com/lifestyle/view/20080510/feature/the-problem-with-me], [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-55720059.html]). ^LeaveSleaves 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Widely cited? A paper cited 47 times isn't that remarkable. Papers of truly notable people get cited hundreds of times. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::::I looked into this in 2007; the histologic articles (including the one with 47 citations) appear to be by a different BM Hyde. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yes i think you are right there is more then one BM Hyde. RetroS1mone talk 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::::::Struck in light of comments. Poor judgment on my part. ^LeaveSleaves 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Quoted in an article makes a person notable? RetroS1mone talk 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:When a person's opinion is accepted as that of an expert in multiple reliable sources, that does add to notability and indicates that the person is well regarded in the area. Plus that was just my secondary point. My primary support stems from the publications. ^LeaveSleaves 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for your view LeaveSleaves. I thought " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," a report some one will speak at a YMCA is very trivial and the drug company thing was a press release so not reliable. Are there works about this Byron M. Hyde, that is how I see WP:NOTE? Google searches for publications can be mis-leading like when there is more then one BM Hyde and there is. Your list of five books has just three published books, one is a collection of poems so it is not for notability of a doctor, one has a three-page article from him and the third, he is one from three editors and it is self-pub. Your list of publications has also another BM Hyde who published in peer-review literature and also publications by this BM Hyde who did not publish medline peer-review articles. When it is enough for notability, then every that has publications can be on WP, i don't think that is intent? RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Per my rationale when the article was deleted in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde. There appears to be no more notability now. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Insufficent notability. Being quoted here and there doesn't seem to me to be enough. Perhaps he can be cited in the appropriate articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO, not enough here (or in google searches) to justify an article. Not notable. (Also as recreation of deleted material) Verbal chat 08:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Does not seem to have enough to establish notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The edited book, published in 1992, is in only 93 libraries according to WorldCat. This book is the main claim for notability in the article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

0.720

Delete An exact search for the name in Scopus, gives only the one Canadian article, which has been cited by nobody from 1996 to date. DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.