Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Ladas

:{{la|George Ladas}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Ladas Stats])

:({{Find sources|George Ladas}})

Not notable. Tentinator (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This surgeon is not notable, although I wish the nominator had expanded on their reasons for saying so. Ladas was the subject of one significant item in an independent source: the Daily Mail article which is already cited. One such article is not enough. Otherwise he seems to be a competent but run-of-the-mill surgeon. The puffery in the article is uncited, and large parts of the article are cut-and-pasted from his bio page at the hospital where he practices.[http://www.rbht.nhs.uk/healthprofessionals/consultants/ladas/] [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=George+Ladas&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar] finds him as one of multiple authors on some moderately-cited papers; that's not enough to qualify per WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Also, the article reads like a resume, and its creator has a sketchy contribution history.Gdfusion (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Weak delete. h-index of 14 is not quite enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited biomed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC).
• Delete. The article does not make a credible case for notability. Simply publishing papers is not enough, and the claims of being a noted pioneer in a particular medical procedure are not substantiated. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Main notability seems to be the introduction of a new medical technology. That seems a bit WP:1E to me. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete fails applicable notability guidelines, based on citations in the current article and my searching of PubMed. -- Scray (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per [http://www.ellines.com/famous-greeks/453-o-ellinas-cheirourgos-pou-skotonei-tous-ogkous/ ΓΙΩΡΓΟΣ ΛΑΔΑΣ "Ο Ελληνας χειρουργός που σκοτώνει τους όγκους"] unless sources like these in Greek are all self-published. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::Also "This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. " In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2013 (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.