Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Yarmush

: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. "No consensus" is kind of a shorthand for "let's wait until we possibly hear from the subject, since for now it is not clear whether we have a valid BLPREQUESTDELETE and the subject seems to be notable by our standard, though the previous version(s) of the article were unacceptably puffy. If we do hear from the subject we'll act on it then. Closing this, with thanks to IP 86.17.222.157 for their efforts." Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

=[[Martin Yarmush]]=

:{{la|Martin Yarmush}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Yarmush Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Martin Yarmush}})

While the subject of this article may meet notability guidelines (and I only say "may" as the previous versions of the article read mainly like a CV dump), the major contributor to this article, User:Timjm, has deleted the article's content twice, stating that the subject of the article "asked for a majority of the material to be removed" and, upon reverting that mass-blanking, "Dr. Yarmush asked for only the first sentence to remain. Please do not undue {{sic}} my changes". What remains does not show how any notability criterion is met; as I do not wish to edit war, and as other editors have edited this, WP:CSD#G7 does not appear to apply, so it is brought here for discussion. Kinu ^t/_c 21:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

keep The subject does appear to be notable, and justified in having an article. WP:PROF appears to be met by number of published papers Though there is a content dispute. The subject of the article though should not determine the content. What is in there should be determined by what the references say. The style of the writing at maximum size has some puffery and peacock terms, so I can see that could lead to embarrassment. Can Timjm please disclose if they have a WP:COI on this topic? If they work for Martin Yarmush then this may explain the content addition and removal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly passes multiple counts of WP:PROF. I'm not surprised that the subject might be embarrassed by the hagiographical nature of the article before it was stubbed, but that's something that should be fixed by editing rather than deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE -- yes, he's a pass of WP:PROF for distinguished professor title among many others, but he is a non-famous person who has requested deletion and the major contributor to the article also wishes deletion. He's not so famous that we don't take the subject's wishes into account. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE & Michael Scott Cuthbert Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have sent the following email to Professor Yarmush to clarify whether he is actually requesting deletion:

Professor Yarmush,

I don't know if you are aware that there is a discussion taking place about whether the Wikipedia article about you should be deleted. Is your objection to the existence of an article in any form, or to the specific form that the article took before it was cut back to one sentence?

Regards,

[redacted],

Volunteer Wikipedia editor

:86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

::*Thanks for doing this -- it is important to be sure of the subject's wishes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Pause to see if there is a response to the IP's query to the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No reply yet, but let's remember that Professor Yarmush is under no obligation to reply promptly, or at all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2016 (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.