Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg J. Marchand

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Salted as well. NeilN talk to me 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg J. Marchand

Greg J. Marchand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had nominated this for speedy deletion with the following rationale: Horrific distortion of medicine through the hyping lens of Guinness-World-Record-land. This page as it is written and constructed has no place in an encyclopedia and needs to be rewritten from scratch, as it is completely driven by hype. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I am the author.) Not sure what the problem is here. I am admittedly a Guinness World Records fan, and I write articles on Guinness World Record holders. I have no relation to the subject. This is a neutral article talking about the subject from a neutral point of view. Whether you feel that Guinness world records are the best thing in the world to happen to medicine or the worst abomination to ever befall medicine, this article does not disagree with you, it just states noteable facts. This was nominated for speedly deletion 10 days ago and stopped by an admin immediately. Again - always open to criticism, I don't see why an article this small can't be fixed if you really feel it's "driven by hype." I say use the edit button, change out the driver and lets make this into a great article. GuinnessFreak (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC) GuinnessFreak has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The editor who stripped the speedy tag is not an admin.
This page is tabloid, fundamentally unserious, and promotional.
I am finding the claim that this is not paid editing to be less and less persuasive.
User:GuinnessFreak you said that you write articles (plural). What other articles have you created? Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on several articles for noteable guinness holders, but obviously not going to publish any more until I figure out if you're upset with me or my subject. No rationale person would say this article is irredeemably tabloid or promotional. Like anything it can always be improved, but the fact that you keep posting that it can't be fixed and just needs to be deleted shows you must have an interest here. Otherwise you would help make the article better like 5 other users and some admins have. Did my subject harm you or a family member? GuinnessFreak (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkable that the photo was uploaded in conjunction with you creating this page File:Greg_J._Marchand.jpg was uploaded at 03:40, 30 April 2018 and added by you, just today. It is the same picture as the one on his website, and big shocker, Marchand features his guinness world record on his home page too. just like you did here. The no-relation-not-paid-editing case is getting weaker the more i look.
I do understand that you cannot tell the difference between promotional hucksterism and NPOV. That is clear. I will not reply here further; the community will weigh in here. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requested the picture from all sources legitimately until I was able to locate one that had the appropriate licensing. Are you saying the picture is promotional? I still don't understand why you just can't improve the article. An admin just made a bunch of changes, why can't you? GuinnessFreak (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've tried to clean up the article. Most of the sources I can find are press releases and the like, so from what I can tell the notability is borderline. Natureium (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the source for the birth date & birth place is. Another sign on UPE - unsourced personal information. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How was I going to put a source citation in an infobox?[1] Seriously though, I'll keep defending my work, but this is really in violation of policies now because we don't even have a reason for deletion stated anywhere. Jytdog is not even suggesting that the article fails WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTABILITY, he's just accusing me of undisclosed COI. It's not appropriate to do that here. You have to make an argument that the article is promotional or not notable, or end the AFD. GuinnessFreak (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Mylife.com is of dubious reliability; I also don't see his birthplace there. The rationale is that notability is marginal and this is clearly under very strong PROMO pressure. Even if we ~could~ make an article, it would need to be redone from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: We add source citations in infoboxes exactly like we do in the rest of the article. You type your fact, you type the <ref>...</ref> tags, and you put your citation information in between the tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. If you ever decide to make any further contributions to Wikipedia perhaps you could justify your opinion with something more tangible than arbitrary assertions. Just a friendly suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Escape Orbit said it best in his April 22, 2018‎ edit "(contains section with criticism, so not completely advertising. Maybe just needs a bit of neutralising)." To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited, and none of those edits have been reverted. I understand Jytdog's MO is to not let go once he/she bites, but this time it's warranted. As usual, I do agree that GuinnessFreak is probably an earthling, and there probably is a COI in him writing about other earthlings.  :) Dmonda (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Dmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited,", but i haven't edited it yet ..... oh, wait. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or heavily rewrite, based on later responses. Keep: Looks like all of nom's issues have been dealt with(I didn't read the version pre-nom, but looks fine now, at most only slightly promotional, a la "dramatically changed").   ~ 
    dgaf)  21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (Note, Tom.Reding changed their !vote in this diff Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC))[reply
    ]
User:Tom.Reding, No they have not. This still wildly over emphasizes his guiness world record stuff. That is Marchand's self-marketing schtick and nothing to do with what we do here in WP. The article is promotional for Marchand, following his own PR, from the ground up. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example - the following is unsupported by its source:

The "Marchand Salpingectomy" surgical technique was developed by Marchand shortly after the

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology released Committee Opinion #620.[2]

References

  1. ^ "My life - Statistical Data". My Life. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  2. ^ "Committee Opinion #620: Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention". American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2018.
The page is full of pure bullshit like this. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the first citation. It is a god damn conference presentation with a hyped up title (ref ":0") (fails MEDRS by miles) and Marchand claims in the section following the sentence quoted above, through what is increasingly obviously his paid editor, that this technique radically changed medical practice. Disgusting unsourced industrial waste dumped into WP. Please read carefully before !voting. This is not a WP page, it is a marketing brochure that is utterly unencyclopedic.Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a paid Editor, although with how angry you are getting I am worried that you have an interest in this some way. I admit that was crapy citing but when the 2: events happen after each other and have the same words in their title it seem reasonable to say shortly after that . Why don't we work on these issues together on the pages talk page and make it into a really great Page?GuinnessFreak (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not belong in main space. If you would agree to draftify it and put it through AfC so the horrifically promotional content can be hosed out of it, the copyright issues with the image clarified, and the content checked to make sure it actually is supported by reliable sources, that would be fine. This needs to get the hell out of mainspace. Would you consent to this being moved to draft space? Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [Edit: Changed suggestion to]
    Too soon for a claim to fame. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The Gnome Thank you for your honest Criticism. I do want to point out that someone who is not a full time professor at a school cannot be a Full tenured professor. Even the most famous surgeon in the country would still be an associate professor if they just taught part time. My subject is a full time surgeon. He's also not a very good guy by most of what I've read. A lot of people think his surgeries can spread cancer and kill people. I thought I was reaching notability based on how widely cited he is in national news media as well as his notoriety for spreading cancer through morcellation. I figured it met notability based on the outrage over his morcellation. I've even seen him on TV myself. I was not trying to meet notability as an academic. But again thank you for your input and I'm always trying to make my articles better. GuinnessFreak (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point about not being a full professor if they are a full time clinician is untrue. The faculty of medical schools follow the typical advancement while doing research/teaching/clinical duties. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this?? you cant be a full professor unless you work for the university. if Ben Carson takes a Harvard student for a semester he can only be an associate professor unless Harvard hires him. you cant claim people that don't work for you are full professors. no university does this. GuinnessFreak (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care at all (we should not care at all) about the subject's "intentions" or "behavior,"
notable enough. My input was based strictly on independent-notability evidence. It seems to be lacking. The strong aroma of promotional verbiage only adds to the ambiance; it does not create it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Subject clearly does not pass general notability guidelines, quite apart from the discussion in
    WP:COIN and the apparent copyvio over the photograph. At first glance it looks like a promotional article, but then seems to turn into an attack article. Well-sourced citations about a specific medical procedure may be appropriate on the entry about that procedure. Shritwod (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I went looking for independent sources; see here for what i found. I then trimmed all the horrible refs and puffery and was left with this. I then self-reverted to restore it. There is a boatload of hype driven Marchand's press releases; almost no truly independent sources discussing him. he has two papers published, both in the same very specifialist journal that has an impact factor of 1.3 over the past five years. Above I said "marginally notable". I strengthen that now to "not notable". He fails
    WP:BIO. You have to cut through a lot of PR to see what is really there. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I really liked the article you found and quoted from the local AZ paper. i was sticking to national news so I missed it. I think that should be a big part of the article. This guy was on every channel with his "oh feel bad for me I had cancer story about the world record." it worked, it was everywhere and still is. there's no way to make that ever not noteable. I think between my version and yours there's a good article. but you cant delete a nationally syndicated news story that played on almost every channel and a us medical school curriculum that mentions him. that's what made this villain noteable. GuinnessFreak (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps that you misunderstand the purpose of the encyclopaedia. If you want to run an exposé on someone, this is not the place to do it. You are not demonstrating the
notability guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Shritwod in my view the "villain" stuff is just speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. GF is very committed to Marchand having a page in WP and is saying what ever he/she thinks we want to hear. IF we strip out all the promotional crap that GF dumped into WP there is nothing left, really. The foundation of this page is promotion; that is its very clear purpose. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we disagree on what we think the intention is, but the conclusion is the same either way. Shritwod (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GF you are again misrepresenting. The references you piled up in the LEAD were either his own very self-promotional video presentations or multiple versions of the same churnalism story in very local media affiliates driven by his press release. I have found no national coverage of this person. it is all local -- mostly AZ (where he is) or Chicago (where one of his co-surgeons is. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Went up to three just now. What mane. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...And it turns out they were socks. Who would've thought? :-) Scalpel, please! -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a reciter of anybody's world record surgical oddities. Other than those there doesn't seem to be much BLP material to go with here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong and by definition. Is it possible your search engines can't find this stuff because you're doing it from England? In the US this reckless morcellating idiot has articles all over the national news about him. Maybe you can try switching to the US version of google news? a few examples:
1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.
2.) NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
There's about 9 more if you dig deeper.
When you've got a nationally televised story, not mentioning this idiot, but actually ABOUT this dangerous idiot, you've met
WP:SIGCOV everytime. I would like permission to revert to Jytdog's masterful edit removing the promotionalism. There is no reason for 10 million sources. The article with 4 citations looks deliciously sharp. Surgical lion (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(Surgical lion has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
Those are just additional instances of
WP:GNG is not met when looking for actually independent sources; the page is fundamentally promotional. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Concur with the canine verdict, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jytdog's rationale which put my thoughts into words more eloquently than I ever could. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no way this can fail WP:GNG. If you read WP:GNG it plainly says:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Individual ABC, NBC and CBS stations all over the nation ran the story. Are we suggesting they were paid? This is how syndicated stories work in the US. If you want to delete the article, go ahead, but these sources meet the very definition of WP:GNG:
1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.
2.) | NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.
5.) Tribune TV 8 in Moline Illinois
Unless the subject owns or paid these stations, (which is impossible,) you've got a story airing all over TV in the USA. WP:GNG by definition. Anyone looking back at this deletion log is instantly going to realize he meets WP:GNG, (despite churnalism being a fancy word.) the only issue is promotionalism. 4.15.15.126 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — 4.15.15.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please login when you comment. It is clear you are the same as one or more of the similarly commenting notes above. I don't think you understand what we mean by "independent" in the GNG. The same story run by many affilates are not independent of one another, and when they are all just "reporting" a press release they are not independent of the subject, either. Churnalism refers to the latter. Wikipedia cannot be manipulated in this way. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:GNG says. It says they have to be independent from the Subject, not independent from each other. Most stories you see on the news will come from the same Associated Press press releases no matter where you are in the United States.GuinnessFreak (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Any reasonable group of people (if it comes to admins) who read that paragraph in WP:GNG, and then read the above 4 sources are going to agree 99.999% of the time that the subject meets criteria. Per the wording of WP:GNG, it does. Churnalism is an interesting concept, which I think should be added to future versions of WP:GNG, but as of now it's not referenced there at all. If we call a false consensus on deletion, admins will eventually read this script and over-rule it. JYTdog wrote an excellent, non-promotional version of this page [here]. I recommend we revert to that and conclude this discussion. So I am changing my vote to "keep" the [new version ] written by JYTdog. Dmonda (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
If you click on the link "independent" to see what the community means by that word, and go to
the section on press releases
, you will see that it says there Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release. Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article.
That is exactly what is going on with these affiliates recycling the press release. This is what churnalism is.
Wikipedia cannot be manipulated by this kind of crap. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTELY NOT! That section of WP-INDY has NOTHING to do with news stories given by reporters, unless they are actively reading a press release. That section is talking about how to identify press release in media disguised as a story. Even if you were trying to make the argument that these news stories were based on a press release, (which is impossible because they are real reporter interviews, not articles) thats even more irrelevant, because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT these 14 news stories did not come from a press release, they came from national reporter. The original story was produced by Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media (they do a lot of the medical interest national stories for CBS, NBC, ABC. Her original story is easy to find] so I suspect you already knew this. It's a real national story shared with many legitimate CBS, NBC, and ABC affiliate stations.
Also, can I point out -
1.) Even if there was some truth to your argument (which as I pointed out above there isn't,) the idea that admitting that a logical person reading
WP:GNG
who (knows what the word independent means) might find this subject to be notable, "but then" someone who did "further research" and read other WP guidelines might decide otherwise is not a very sound argument. Wikipedia guideline articles are not so sloppily written as to give that wide of contradicting information to readers.
2.) Even if the above were not obvious grounds for notability (which they are,) coming in the context of a genuinely awarded Guinness world record (very often notable alone,) national coverage from the Guinness record, the fact that the subject has verifiable publications featured in the published curriculum of US medical schools, and that his publications are known enough to be infrequently cited, I think you would have to agree that most admins here would just say "hey close enough." But hey - you're a fighter, I'll give that to you.
3.) I honestly think if you lived in America you would just recognize the guy from TV or newspaper and not go down this road at all.
So are you still going to keep this up Jytdog? Or can we finally just publish that beautiful page you put together here? Come on! Dmonda (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That side swiping digression into an
ad hominem only weakens your arguments, Dmonda. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologize if that came off as too pointy. Not my intention. Obviously I feel very strongly about my argument based on the definitions defined in WP-GNG and the criteria of WP-INDY section 5.1. Dmonda (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have struck the votes of three confirmed socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Perhaps you should strike off the rest of the socks' commentary as well. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per WP:G5; I knew I was being bullshitted. Sock of User:Dmonda. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was tagged for speedy for being created by socks, then removed as there were substantial subsequent edits by others. I am fine with the AfD going though and being closed; this is actually a stronger outcome that we can use to overcome future efforts to create. I want to add that due to the obvious and intense promotional pressure, the page should be salted after it is deleted. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stripped-down version still contains two sources that are entirely about other people. Ignoring those, we only have one good source, the Alltucker Arizona Republic newspaper story alleging professional misconduct. That's not enough. And even if we kept an article, the sock party here makes clear that it will be very difficult to maintain it in a properly neutral state. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note about Ivanhoe, the source of the syndicated stories mentioned above. See This 2009 piece at HealthNewsReview.org which is their most substantial discussion of that company. Withering. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt One good source is not enough to go on. ("Record-breaking uterus" is a pretty good headline, though, so I'm glad it was brought to my attention.)
    talk) 21:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A lot of people are watching this and it is setting a little bit of a dangerous precedent. Jytdog is admitting that it meets
WP:INDY. I'm not saying anyone is owed a "Sock-pology" but the bullying that occurred would certainly dissuade good writers from contributing to wikipedia. Phoenix Mike22 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)— Phoenix Mike22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
And whose sock drawer do you belong in? Natureium (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, see here where after hosing out all the crappy sources I wrote that it is very clear this fails GNG, as others have articulated as well. Marginal N + strong PROMO is also a valid deletion rationale. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the link provided by Jytdog above, we read: "Ivanhoe...allows local reporters to put their names on stories they didn’t report, film or write — without mentioning Ivanhoe. Stations also are permitted to omit geographical information, giving viewers the false impression that the stories were locally produced and the patients and doctors quoted in the stories could be their neighbors. ... More power to entrepreneurs like Ivanhoe who make money (actually a lot of money) doing this. That’s a business decision. Shame on the stations that take this “quick and dirty” route to health news coverage. That’s a journalism ethics decision." 'Nuff said. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh air at last! The stink of his socks caused Phoenix Mike22 to be thrown out from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I assume some paid editor will have an unhappy client. But our encyclopedia will than contain less non notable advertising. Also one could delete this based on G5 as it is nearly certainly the work of socks of a prior blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. Someone declined the speedy. Natureium (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This will be more permanent and will get it salted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning precisely  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Hopefully stop it being recreated 4 or 14 months up the road. scope_creep (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_J._Marchand&oldid=1145859223"