Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay P. Serdev

: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. This is a rather difficult situation. Many folks agree that the subject is not sufficiently notable, and a few of the keep votes at the end of the discussion don't really refute these arguments well. However, IP69.226.103.13's concerns hold weight, and given that there are a few arguments for retention provided by established editors, it's probably reasonable to close this as NC. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

=[[Nikolay P. Serdev]]=

:{{la|Nikolay P. Serdev}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Nikolay P. Serdev}})

Non notable surgeon in my field Droliver (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: Per the awards. Joe Chill (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually look at those "awards"? The only reference to them is his own website. No disrespect to Dr. Serdev, but he is not a notable figure in my fieldDroliver (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have, as yet, formed no opinion about the notability of the subject, but I'm a bit worried about the repeated use of the phrase "in my field" as if it implied some sort of specialist knowledge by the nominator of the potential notability of the subject. I see no reason to suppose that a plastic surgeon in Alabama would have any better idea of the notability of a plastic surgeon in Bulgaria than the average Wikipedia editor. I (as an Englishman) couldn't name any Bulgarian or Alabaman practising in my profession, but that doesn't mean that none of them are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

reply Phil, I would argue that someone practicing in a relatively small field like mine would provide better context on what being notable in that field actually means. Our major peer reviewed journals are international in scope, and many surgeons in Europe, asia, and south america are clearly notable. This is not one such instance which should be clear by reviewing the CV of this physician. Keeping Wikipedia uncluttered from vanity bios of physicians in my area is something I take an interest in. Droliver (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • delete 10 articles only in medline, which does seem to cover at least the major Bulgarian journals. --no way of linking directly to a NCBI search, but the Scirus link is [http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=Serdev&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=jnl] There seem to also be a few citation of it [http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=Serdev&t=all&sort=0&drill=yes&q=%22cosmetic+surgery%22&t=all&g=r] but his method is clearly not quite as important as the article makes him out to be, or there would be many more. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The International Journal cited in the article makes the technique out to be important. Why does your own original research into the notability of the technique trump a peer-reviewed journal? Your OR and Droliver's personal pronouncement of non-notability should not be criteria for deletion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. In Bulgaria Cosmetic and Plastic surgery are two separate medical specialties. The field of Dr. Serdev is Cosmetic surgery (he is the National Consultant in the Ministry of Health), not Plastic surgery so it is understandable that he is not a notable sugreon in Droliver's field (who as i can see is a Plastic surgeon in the US). I have found some sources of information and scholars that I saw were required and I have added them as citations. Some of them are from Bulgarian sources and are written in Bulgarian, but I don't think this will be a problem since there are web translators. I will search further and in case I find anything helpful and useful for this discussion, i will post it. Creative69 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per DGG and per nom. The voices of people who have genuine expertise in their fields are, in my view, most welcome at wikipedia. RayTalk 01:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Non-notable in nominator's field?! This is wikipedia, can you identify yourself fully, your field, and provide independent, verifiable, reliable resources that you are an authority for notability in your field? what? Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If he hasn't provided this information already it would be rude to ask and much worse than rude to try to find out on our own. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's right, the information is not available, and it is not relevant to the discussion. I can't come to AfD and say this should be deleted because I'm an authority in my field and I say he's not notable. That's no such AfD criterion that an editor can self-declare their expertise and get an article deleted on that basis. This AfD should be closed. I have no intention of looking up any information on the user: the information would be irrelevant to this discussion and this article. It's not a deletion criterion: self-proclaimed expertise of wikipedia editor. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no reason why an editor should not declare expertise in an area. Whether others are persuaded by the declaration is another matter. The advice of experts is welcome to WP. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • That a person is not notable according to a wikipedia editor is NOT a criterion for deletion. Notability is NOT established by the individual self-declaration of any wikipedia editor. It doesn't matter whether he's an expert in his field, all of his edits must meet the same criteria for inclusion in wikipedia articles as any other editor's. This includes his deletion criteria: they are set by community consensus. If the surgeon is not notable, it is because the reliable evidence from acceptable sources says he is not. It is not because a wikipedia editor declares himself the decider of notability. The community consensus has already made a decision about how notability is decided in an encyclopedia, by reliable sources. Now, are the sources reliable? Yes, the international journal citing this surgeon is a peer-reviewed journal. This editor is not a peer-reviewed journal. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Strong keep nominator's pronouncement without references and DGG's OR should not trump peer reviewed journal's declaration of notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the results of the linked searches above demonstrate a lack of sufficient source material to establish notability. I also tried those searches without the middle initial, with similar results. There are of course sources -- his own journal articles, etc. -- but these do not add up to notability according to our usual standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I searched in Google to find more information and under the phrases "serdev", "serdev suture lift", "serdev suture suspension" appear a great number of clinics that use the techniques described. To me personally this is quite an accomplishment. Creative69 ( talk ) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But does that make the man, or the method WP:Notable? Would every person that contributed a suture method be Notable. Would every suture method be Notable. I am sure that every method can be found in a peer-reviewed journal or text, but how does 1 method, or creator of that method, become more notable than any other? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability clearly established by the section on professional recognition. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the references given in that section fail WP:RS and/or fail to demonstrate what is being claimed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note He seems best published by "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SURGERY" (Nikolay P. Serdev, MD, Ph D, Managing Editor) apparently the organ of a couple of international bodies including the "International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery" ( http://www.iacsorg.com/index.php website does not function for me). You can become accredited by the IABS if, among other things you have the right experience in "Ginecology" [http://www.ijcs.org/board_certification.php] and get your application and cash in by August 2004. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC).
  • The "International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery/Surgeons" does not appear to have any standing with the Royal College of Surgeons, although its president is also the president of the European Association of Aesthetic Surgery [http://www.cosmeticmedicalpracticesubmission.info/appendices/Appendix%2034%20-%20Letter%20from%20European%20Society%20of%20Aesthetic%20Surgery.pdf] (based in the same cottage). While based in the UK, the UK body is the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), the international body the IPRAS. The president is registered with GMC with a licence to practice from 19 November 2009, but is not registered with BAPRAS and is not in the specialist registers at the GMC. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep. Comments of some plastic surgeons above do not accept the free development of the scientific thought. See [http://www.ijcs.org/declaration_of_tokyo_2000.php Declaration of Tokyo, 2000]. Except BAPRAS and IPRAS there exist other scientific societies in fields beyond plastic surgery, beyond plastic treatment of conditions acquired as a result of trauma, disease, degeneration or ageing. Cosmetic surgery is not linked to plastic surgery only. It is multidisciplinary, based on tremendous number of surgical and non surgical techniques created by non plastic surgeons as well. Cosmetic surgery is for beautification and maintaining of healthy persons. Plastic surgery as per definition is a treatment of illness - "Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery is a specialty concerned with acute and non-acute conditions which may be congenital or acquired as a result of trauma, disease, degeneration or ageing in patients of both sexes and all ages. Its aim is the restoration or improvement of function and the normalisation of appearance and well-being." Publications in cosmetic surgery should and can not be linked to plastic surgery journals only. talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
  • "Keep". Professor Serdev is a cosmetic surgeon, who makes clear the distinction between his field of non-invasive or keyhole beautification surgery and that of plastic surgery which is founded on a reconstructive techniques [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/463763/plastic-surgery]. He is indeed entitled to be described as notable sharing the lecture podium at numerous international congresses alonside other notable and respected plastic and cosmetic surgeons. This can be varified on a simple Google check with special reference to cosmetic surgical societies in Central and South America where his distinguished reputation is particularly well established [http://www.claudiasrur.com.ar/congreso_completo.php?congreso=54] [http://www.ibcsorg.com/board_members.php]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needleye (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Needleye (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • "plastic surgeons do not accept free development of scientific thought" OMFG. This is a silly discussion. It's clear to anyone willing to actually research this doctor that there is nothing particularly notable to anything claimed by this surgeon. It's all marketing and fluff without substance no matter what he chooses to call it. This AFD isn't an assualt on someone's character, it's pointing out that is nothing exceptional about him in the context of a contemporary surgeon. Droliver (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Keep". It must be remembered that "Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research)." The knowledge about Professor Serdev does indeed exist and is referenced and readily identified on the www. To those in the field of his discipline of (non-plastic) cosmetic surgery, he his indeed notable and innovative. Rather than seeking to edit this article it appears that, through this forum, some opposing surgeons may be acting inappropriately to suppress the existing knowlege of this surgeon and public access to it through Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarman (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 December 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.