Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex D. Russell

:{{la|Rex D. Russell}} ([{{fullurl:Rex D. Russell|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex D. Russell}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Another in the recent string of non-notable obituaries by User:Billy Hathorn. This individual's only potential claim to fame is having written a book which, as far as I can tell, is not notable. Teaching classes at his local church and performing angioplasties and other things that are part of his job, is not notability. Of the four sources left in the article (after I removed other irrelevant ones), one is his obituary in the local paper, two are general directory listings, and one is the amazon page for his book. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm conflicted on this one as it is in need of a rewrite (it reads like the obituaries on which it is based rather than a biography) Russell does appear from the sources to be a medical pioneer in the state of Arkansas. It struggles to reach the line for notability but I think it might just cross it, especially if another source or three can be found. - Dravecky (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The current text of the article doesn't make the best case for Dr. Russell's notability, but a Google search of his book turns up more than 6,000 hits; the Google Books search indicates that he's cited in several dozen other legitimately puboished books (perhaps the best evidence of notability here); Amazon says his book is currently #23 best seller in its category and #19,445 best-seller among ALL Books, which ain't bad, really; and there's even a spinoff "What the Bible Says About Healthy Living Cookbook". On the minus side of the ledger, I didn't find many WP:RS reviews of the book (well, there's [http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/Homeschool_Reviews/reviews.php?rid=158 this one]). This stuff isn't my cup of tea, but it certainly seems to be somebody's, and I'd be inclined to let him stay.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, weakly leaning keep per thoughts above - plagiarism is present in this article; for example...source: "He was the National Football Hall of Fame Scholar, Athlete of the Year in 1962, one of only eight chosen each year. He received his education from Oklahoma State University Baylor College of Medicine. His internship was served through the University of Kentucky, and he served his residency at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Rex retired from Sparks Regional Medical Center after 29 years of practice as an invasive radiologist. " Article: "In 1962, he was one of eight individuals chosen as annual "National Football Hall of Fame Scholars". He graduated from Oklahoma State University in Stillwater and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, interned at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine in Lexington, and then served his residency at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Russell retired from Sparks Regional Medical Center in Fort Smith after twenty-nine years of practice as a radiologist." IMO, it's too close to the source. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing remotely notable. None of the above things are notable, neither individually or in combination. A physician with a purely local practice and one non-notable book. To be notable professionally he'd need much more than that. A small town obit is not a reliable source sufficient for notability--only the most major of national newspapers are. A "medical pioneer" would be one of the first doctors in the state. The obit does not say he was the first doctor to do angioplasties etc in Arkansas as the article does: it makes the much vaguer statement "He was the first physician in Arkansas to do such procedures as angioplasties etc...." : even the compiler of the local newspaper obit knew he had no evidence to say anything actually specific. If he is notable, every professional in every small town is, for they all get obits. If the town is small enough, every resident. DGG (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete article does not establish notability as per analysis of DGG, certainly not as an academic/educator. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC).
• delete per DGG, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF by a large margin. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent summary by DGG. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable if not hugely so, primarily for the somewhat notable book as Arxiloxos above. Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd suggest merging into an article on his book, per WP:BIO1E, except that the book itself doesn't appear sufficiently notable for its own article. If it isn't, he is even less so. The only real source is the newspaper obit — rootsweb is not reliable and genealogical information is not useful for checking notability, and similarly the drscore site isn't helpful in this regard unless we want to assert that every physician is notable, and I don't think we do. But I don't think an obituary only from his home town newspaper, a town of less than 100,000, means much either; it's not uncommon for papers at this level to print obits for any resident whose family takes the effort to write one. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, from experience in that area: "it's not uncommon for papers at this level to print obits for any resident whose family takes the effort to write one pays for its publication." — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per DGG and David Eppstein.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:04, 24 May 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.