Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter M. Rhee

:{{la|Peter M. Rhee}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Peter M. Rhee}})

Individual fails WP:BLP1E. He is considered notable only as the attending physician to Gabrielle Giffords in the wake of the 2011 Tucson shooting, as all sources indicate. Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS here again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:Notability problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Hold for now as the article is still developing. Upon checking, this individual has a substantial history that predates the shooting. KimChee (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, although Dr Rhee may not pass the WP:GNG or WP:PROF, he clearly does not fall under WP:BLP1E. His case should be evaluted under WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Upon further checking, the subject had notability / media coverage for other events prior to the shooting (though the latter event substantially raised his profile), satisfying the issue of BLP1E. As director of several medical institutions and having been published regularly in medical journals, he also appears to satisfy WP:PROF. I think this may be the result of a knee-jerk reaction to a rash of other articles (some deservedly) being subject to AfD after being split off from the main 2011 Tucson shooting article. KimChee (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG, and due to fact that individual passes WP:BLP1E as indicated by KimChee. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per RightCowLeftCoast et al., however it needs a lot of editorial help to not look like a semi-random assemblage of potpourri. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply as he has at least three other claims to fame, most notably the Quikclot controversy. Appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Seen a lot worse articles on surgeons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Obscure person but does meet WP criteria. He was personal physician to Clinton, which is BLP1E. Then he has more stuff. Pacific 1818 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: the nom's only concern of BLP1E seems to have been proven inconsequential, and I see no other notability issues. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - fully cited, easily passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:BLP1E not applicable and subject is notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (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.