Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination)
He has received major international media coverage for multiple aspects of his work on Wikipedia: Rorschach tests http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24inkblot.html NYT 2009, https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rorschach-and-wikipedia-the-battle-of-the-inkblots/article4280876/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& Globe&Mail 2009; the reliability of its medical information http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wikipedia-s-medical-errors-and-one-doctor-s-fight-to-correct-them-1.2743268 CBC 2014, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/08/501087493/should-i-trust-wikipedia-with-my-health NPR 2016; the fight against paid editors https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ Atlantic 2015, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvzbp3/wikipedia-is-being-ripped-apart-by-a-witch-hunt-for-secretly-paid-editors Vice 2017; his work on and departure from the Wikimedia board http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/12/wikimedia_dumps_elected_trustee/ Register 2016. Very clear pass of  and . Whether he's also notable as a physician or academic is by now completely irrelevant. And the nomination statement is completely flawed: if someone is notable for their work on Wikipedia, it is unproblematic and indeed what we would want and expect for their article to focus on their work on Wikipedia
— User:David, 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:Notability)