Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/G. Patrick Maxwell (2nd nomination)

message: I resent Midgley suggesting that I would duplicate my identity here.  I am NOT Gfwesq.  Furthermore, I have no more of an agenda than Rob or  you.   This article should be deleted.  It does not meet Wikopedia standards.  Furthermore, I have not and would suggest deletion of other entries of notable plastic surgeons, who clearly DO meet Wikopedia standards.  IN fact, Midgely, you yourself questioned this in the first nomination for deletion, of which I was not a part.  Many many many articles started by someone on Wikopedia are deleted.  Why you think this one is unique, is beyond me.  
You write, "if someone thought it was worth writing an article, leaving it there is reasonable, even if nobody else would have been inclined to write it."  That is absurd.  If that were true, there would be no deletion process.MollyBloom 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Midgleys Unwarranted and Uncivilized Accusation

message: Others here seem to agree that this article is not worthy of inclusion in Wikopedia, or are you going to accuse me of being GassyGuy also?  OR maybe Ian?  Or Bwitth? 
"as I don't see any proof he's more notable than other people in his field. Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry."
It seems that the complaints with this article have been voiced long before my even reading it.
It is dishonest for Midgley to say that I suggested deletion after or because of my edits.  The fact is, there are still baseless statements, that are not supported by fact.  Moreover, the fact is that this surgeon has no more publications than many tenured college professors or run-of-the-mill experts in any given field.   Also, you would not suggest including an article on all those who testified before the FDA, so why this particular person?
Oh, I just heard from one friend who is a plastic surgeon (who does do breast augmentation and reconstructive surgery).  He said he didn't know much about Maxwell, and didn't see that he was particularly notable, although he certainly viewed himself to be.  MollyBloom 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an exercise, name a plastic surgeon more notable than this one...IE one about whom an article should exist.  (You may end up writing it, of course).  Meanwhile, on the gneeral subject of notability of what some peoples call physicians even if they are surgeons, this question still lacks an answer on the talk page of notability --> living people.  THose who are sure of the answer should perhaps contribute it there. Midgley 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Harold Delf Gillies, for example, which is an entry on Wikopedia.  That is most certainly notable.  Maxwell (unless it is James Clerk Maxwell, the physicist) is not notable.  In fact, Midgely, it might be instructive for you to see the entry on James Clerk Maxwell, so you can see how this is different. MollyBloom 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Notability

message: Midgley, if testifying before the FDA is grounds for inclusion in Wikopedia, then I should have an entry, since I testified.  What do you think?   Do you even have a clue as to how many people - experts, scientists of all stripes and lay people  testify?  That has got to be one of the most absurd 'reasons' for inclusion in Wikopedia that I have ever heard.  MollyBloom
:How many?  Of those, how many on matters over which there is significant controversy?  Of those latter, bluntly, how many have a professional qualification in what they are talking about?  As one sifts, the likeihood of notability rises.  And it is of course silly to suggest that any individual item taken alone garantees notability or inclusion - the totality of several does though.  My ignorance of such detail is indeed considerable, however it has not been reduced by any information proferred here.  As to the merits of writing an article about a living person who is a contributor to WP - that turns upon someone feeling it is worth starting, and there are a bunch of WP policies about it, I recommend reading some of the policies.  Midgley 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Midgely.  I testified on the same matter that Maxwell did.  Is that a good enough example? MollyBloom 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Testifying before the FDA

message: A test for worthiness of people like Dr. Maxwell is outlined here on wikipedia aka "The Professor's Test"[]. Proposed criteria to include are:
*The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources. 
*The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. 
*The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 
*The person has published a significant or well-known academic work. 
*The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. 
*The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. 
*The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them
I would sumbit that you can pretty easily show that Dr. Maxwell meets not one, but all of these guidelines.Droliver 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do it, if you can. Don't just tell us he is important because Dr. Oliver says so.Gfwesq 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability criteria for WP Bio's

message: Gee, another person who thinks it is not a good idea to put silicone implants in a woman against her wishes, or include someone with this background in a Wiki article.  I'm amazed at how flippant the Wiki doctors are about this, or as Midgley suggested, 'it is no big deal'.   I suspect many women would think it is a very big deal.  And as to Maxwell's 'world renowned' status, I have yet to see anything to substantiate that.  Maybe Maxwell is a legend in his own mind, and in his followers, but I sure see little to recommend him for inclusion in Wikopedia.  MollyBloom 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Big Deal

message: The context for notoriety is the lawsuit against him, what was revealed in discovery such as his admitted alcoholism and entry into rehab (about the time of the lawsuit), allegations of cocaine abuse which was one of the questions of the  plaintiff's lawyers, and community reputatation which is not exactly stellar on these accounts.
I don't really think you want to highlight the context for notoriety, do you?  The paragrah about the lawsuit is sufficient, without the volatile discussion of his chemical dependencies.
As it has been requested that more evidence of his stature be provided to support the claim that he is both an international figure & recognized as superlative within his field. I give you these links to recent meetings world-wide where he's been an invited speaker. This is in addition to hundreds of other events he's done before the last two years. Is there anyone who can plausibly still argue about this?
:I don't think anyone disputed his speaking engagement, but I don't see the point.  Many academics travel for speaking engagements, or as visiting professors.  I can remember professors rotating these.... This is not particularly unique or extraordinary, unless, of course, you are talking about some small low rated med school.  ANd, t his is not a puff piece, either.
I looked up Visiting Professor for plastic surgery foundation, one of the references.  (And it is not called 'nationwide').  Here is a professor and surgeon that seems to have considerably more experience and credentials (including speaking invitations) than Maxwell.  He testified before the FDA, and etc etc etc which is not all that unusual for proponents of silicone impalnts and those doctors connected with breast impant manufacturers.  Here is his CV:  http://www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body.cfm?id=1637.  He is one of many.  I don't suggest that all be included with Wiki articles.  This simply is not a legitmate way to determine notability.  If this were the criteria,  every academic and specialist in the country would overwhelm Wikopedia.  That is simply ludicrous.  Again, I am not discounting Dr. Maxwell's achievements, nor am I suggesting that Spear's be highlighted.  Spear was a defendant in a case against breast implant manufacturers, and has had financial links with silicone implant manufacturers (clearly a strong advocate for silicone breast implants) but in a cursory review I see nothing like a claim of malpractice or personal malfeasance.  This is merely one example of many, as to why Maxwell is not exceptionally notable in the field.  There are many many surgeons with his expertise, and his credentials, and his CV and even more speaking engagements.  That is true for about every field I can think of..   God knows, it is in law.  I just have to look at half my former law professors and can come up with a CV to rival or surpass Maxwell (taking into consideration the difference in area of study and expertise).MollyBloom 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now we are having it again. Can you make a coherent argument that Maxwell is a notable figure using the Wikipedia guidlines for notable professionals or not? I'll give you one hint, attacking Molly or me or any other editor is not a coherent argument within the guidlines. What is notable about Maxwell that differentiates him from the pack? I would point out that Gassyguy notes the last time it was promised it would be shown that Maxwell is indeed notable AND he feels that this promise was not kept. So it is not just Molly. So far the only arguments I have seen are circular ones. He is not notable, simply because Dr. Oliver says he is notable. Give an arguement explaining what he has achieved, why it is important and state whether he did all the work himself or as part of a team or what. Complaining Molly is being spiteful does not meet that goal (and really, at the risk of being insulting, it is childish)Gfwesq 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry.
South Korea 2005
[]
China 2005 
[]
Keynote Speaker of Kentucky State Meeting 2005[]
Stockholm 2005 []
Russia 2006 []
Brazile 2006 []
Orlando,FL ASAPS 2006 presenter/panelist [download/2006ScientificProgram.pdf] 
Atlanta Breast Symposium 2006/2005
[] []
Speaker at Northeastern Plastic Surgery Society meeting 2005[]
2005 Mexico []
2005 Milan [European Conference 0.pdf#search='patrick%20maxwell%20surgery']
[]
Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter []
New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker
Quebec 2004 
[]Droliver 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  context for his noteriety 

message: I have not removed anything that Midgely wrote except the incorrect comment on the front page.  I have NEVER deleted his vote.  I do not believe it was deleted -- it probably was moved ot the talk page by Ian, but I didn't look to make sure.  That probably should be corrected..  However, Midgely's  ugly accusations continue, and are always baseless.  He last accused me of removing his vote & comments, and wrote nearly a page long diatribe on how horrible I was.  Ian pointed out to him that in fact Ian had inadvertantly moved those to the talk page along with other comments.  Midgely never apologized to me, or to anyone.  Midgely needs to have a comlaint filed against him, and banned for continued personal attacks and violation of Wikopedia's standard of conduct.  His atrocious behavior and personal attacks continue, unabated, despite several warnings from admins.  MollyBloom 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly scope for an RFC, however it is also abundantly clear that Molly did remove one of my comments(see over for th diff and commentary on it - it was significant), and my vote was removed.  THe latter was inadvertent and not Molly.    Midgley 00:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said that, and I said why.  This was the ONLY one I ever removed, and I said that.  I also said you could add it back.  I see you added a comment much longer.   I have already sought a former resolution of the personal attacks Midley has made.  Midgely has created a brawl by his personal attacks, and then called for premature closure to the Rfd because of what he created.  I appreciate that Midgley finally admitted the removal of the vote was inadvertant and not by me.  However, he had previously and falsely accused me of removing it then used that as a forum to launch yet another diatribe against me.MollyBloom 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Midgley keeps making accusations of removing his comments, or vote, or who knows what else

message: I am asking again that Midgley and Oliver be stopped from making personal attacks.  This is ridiculous.  Now because of his own attacks, Midgley says this has turned into a brawl and the Afd should be closed.  This is ridiculous.
The ONLY thing I ever deleted was your gross disruption on the main page.  I NEVER deleted anything on the talk page, or any other comment of yours or anyone else's on the main page or the talk page.  Why is this becomeing a brawl?  Because Midglely made it one.
Yes, I added to my original reason for Rfd.  This is a supplement.  Nobody has told me this is a problem.  Please refer me to the rule on that, if you can.MollyBloom 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Attacks

message: ;::: This line of argument, such as it is, is ridiculous. Molly Bloom appears to have some knowledge of the complications of breast implants and I note that on the breast implant page, another editor attempted to  remove any information placed by Molly concerning these issues over and over until temporarily banished by admins. I also note a professor of plastic surgery and a  epidemiologist associated with Harvard and Yale weighed in on Molly's side on that page.  I don't believe epidemiology is a specialty of ether DrOliver or yours, Midge.  Furthermore this sort of chart making borders on cyber stalking.  Gfwesq 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, you don't know.  Any of the doctors in WP will know.  Asking one of them before you referred to that irrelevant article would have been wise, not seeking to ensure you are not wrong after you have been publicly told that you are is unwise.  And yes, microsurgical transfer of any flap is related to the flap, but the essence of the technique (and arguably why the first word of the title is "microsurgical" and not "Latissimus", or "flap") is that where it ends up is not anatomically related to where it started from.  Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They can read now that you have revealed what you regarded as a source - and whichis not a source for what you asserted.  Until then it was occult.  Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as I realized that I omitted the link, I added it.  And neither you nor I need to editorialize, since presumably Wiki users are capable of reading.  Thanks!  MollyBloom 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is untrue.  Midgley 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. And, to my knowledge, you never acknowledged you made a false accusation and never made a full apology for it. This would be a good time to do so. Gfwesq 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your knowledge is incomplete.  This sort of argument requires diffs because often impressions and recollections turn out not to be supported by actual fact. Midgley 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation for acknowlegdement of false accusation and full apology please Gfwesq 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the efforts to provide education on legal topics.  I will not do what you ask, instead I shall teach you how to use a web browser.  Generally to search within a page the key combination is control +f press that, and type "apol".  Press next.  I found it on the third appearance of the string "apol" in this page.  Midgley 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't even recognize a joke when you see one, can you? in any event its even easier to use the find function on your browser and what I found was not much of an apology and you never made a full admission of false accusation Gfwesq 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a joke, or, you had already found it but were demanding I find it for you, or it won't do anyway?  It was a mistake, I misread a very complex set of edits - too complex - and it was corrected.  WP isn't (supposed to be) a dialogue, it is refactored by many people, and it isn't that important who corrects an error.  The Find function is, by the way, teh search within a page function, hence control F, for find.  You knew that, perhpas.Midgley 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I made you go through admiting your mistake 3 times now. That's sufficient. You've done enough penance for this bit of malfeasance. Gfwesq 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure we are getting mail.  If you "note" something then it is a personal attack, an attempt to poison the well and various other things which are thought not to advance the  encyclopaedia.  If you point to a diff, saying that on this occasion something was done or said, then others can judge for themselves.  Midgley 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Molly poisoned the well, I think she just pointed out the well was full of poison. If you don't want people calling you on being abusive, refrain from being abusive. Its really simple. Treat others as you, yourself want to be treated. Gfwesq 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That thought is misguided, and not helpful.  Midgley 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, it highlights the problem and so by definition it cannot be misguided. Also you must be the first person in history to say the "golden rule" is misguided Gfwesq 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that the link Midgely has here links to an inflammatory discussion and an accusation that was proved to be false.  This needs to be on the front page.  Midgley's votes were never deleted, but were moved by administrators inadvertantly. MollyBloom
Ian, an administrator, pointed out that HE inadvertantly moved Midgley's vote to the discussion page, along wtih a section of discussion.  For the sake of peace, Midgley, please remove the link to  your previous inflammatory disparagement of me, and just include your vote.  Thanks!
Also, please do now swear here.MollyBloom 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that my vote was removed, and this much later edit is incorrect, the link I provided is a diff to my addition of my vote, by me to the preceding material. (Molly, the diff points to the right hand column, which is where the new material that has been added is shown.) For th purpose of peace and quite let us agree that whatever it was that happened, before it my vote was here on this page where it could be counted, and after it happened my vote was nt here, not on this page, not where it could be counted. If it is a matter of enormous significance to anyone that this not be described as "deleted" then let us call it "accidently removed". And just above, is a note made by me saying so, and putting it back, and pointing to where it was originally added, and by the way, mentioning the tedium of picking through to find the no doubt benign explanation. Now close the damn thing and stop refactoring the past. Midgley 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was always in your power.  I shall now point you to another AfD which contains a quote you'll recognise ... I suggest following it up to the ensuing discussion, and deciding whether anything other than using additional time and effort on something other than writing encyclopaedia articles was achieved then.  I think it wasn't.  I think that it won't be here, but nobody except the originator of this AfD could possibly close it early.  One interpretation of doing that - as shown I hope in another AfD I can't find just now, by me, is being graceful in defeat, although thinking of it as defeat is actually a problem in itself.  I have to go out now.  Midgley 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, which I decline.  There has not been defeat on the Rfd -in fact, discounting the new user votes, there are still more 'delete' votes than 'keep'.  Whether an administrator chooses to keep anyway, I suppose, is up to the admin.  Again, my frustration was the constant fighting, which I still hope we can stop.  Thanks Midgely!MollyBloom 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an Rfd, Not a Forum to Attack Editors

message: As well as general pleas for civility are inappropriate for project page, so I moved them in their entirety to discussion page. I apologize in advance if I accidentally moved someone's vote, feel free to move it (any vote erronously moved) back Gfwesq 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a personal attack (in what way did I attack you?) Instead, I wish you'd stop attacking every keep vote. Also, I'm voting as a Wikipedian here; admins have no special powers when voting on AFD and should not receive different treatment for this reason. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you really didn't understand.  I did not challenge or criticize your 'keep' vote.  What I criticized was your "Molly" vote.  That is inappropriate on the Rfd.  If you have a problem with me, take it elsewhere.  "Molly" censure is not a vote on the Rfd.  Frankly, I no longer care what happ;ens to the article.  I am sick of the senseless warring and insult hurling that has nothing to do wtih the Rfd.  It continues unabated without anyone stopping it.  I will delete any further personal attacks since me.  THis is not professional, appropriate and if this is Wikopedian, then I want no part of it.MollyBloom 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything, JFW, as an administrator, you would be more helpful if you would help establish civility here.MollyBloom 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks, replies to personal attacks and requests to stop personal attacks (moved from main page) 

message: I have been told I have done this.  I stopped.  Please see what Oliver wrote (which, by the way, is still unsubstantiated claim), to argue with a 'delete' vote:
::He is indeed notable, signifigant, and world-famous within his field IS the point. You don't have that many publications, acclaim in both the professional and lay press, and featured speaking engagements around the world if you're not. I'm not sure what it is that you'd look for establish that for you. If being a featured speaker in meetings in Korea, Mexico, Sweden, China, Canada & Italy + the major American Plastic Surgery meetings within the last calender year don't establish his credentials as someone of distinction in our field, I don't know what will short of being on Dr. 90210 (which ironically has approached him about coming to Nashville to film a show)Droliver 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not argue with those who 'vote'.

message: My suggestion is that all stop the personal criticisms, harassment, and turning an Rfd into a forum for personal argument, swearing and the like.  I don't know how many times I need to request civility, but I will try again.  From this point forward, let us discuss issues, and not people.  I also ask that any administrator that sees any violation of this promptly respond and delete the personal insult or attack.  That includes mine, if I make any.  Since I am trying to be fair here, it includes everybody, including administrators.MollyBloom 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Molly has said, the best action for everyone would be to put this matter behind them. As I stated on a Mediation Cabal case concerning this AfD, further comments focusing on the editor rather than the matter at hand is not getting the debate forward. Accusations were made, feelings were hurt, but in the best interest of everyone let's put that behind us. In conclusion (Warning:Cliché!)if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you mean as opposed to Alice Lee Roosevelt Longworth's If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me?Gfwesq 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try AGAIN to be civil

message: First.  Kudos to Cowman for a stellar job of mediating.
Second.  A big 'thank you' to Midgley, for his offer of half a cookie.  I would take the left half of the sugar-free, thank you.MollyBloom 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you Cowman and MIdgley

message: Oh and most if not all the docs below have had assitant professorships.  Hmm.  
Here is something about microsurgery and breast reconstruction:
Dr. Robert J. Allen pioneered microsurgical Breast Reconstruction with perforator flaps in 1992. He originated the DIEP, the S-GAP, the I-GAP and the SIEA procedures for breast reconstruction.
Okay this may be a different procedure.  How many different surgeons belong in Wikopedia, who each developed procedures or refinements?  This really is a fair question.  
Is the issue just a matter of who has a student willing to push a POV?  I note that the docs who are for inclusion of their fellow doc point out his work on the microsurgical free flap.  How is that related to this statement:  "Maxwell is a strong proponent of silicone breast implants" that is in the article?  It seems t o me more a POV by Oliver, who has been angry about the introduction in the BI article that there is any controversy whatsoever.  This is exactly what I mean.  There has been a lot of vicious talk here about my POV.  Wow.  I think it is obvious that Oliver has taken his love of silicone breast implants to push POV and highlight his beloved teacher at the same time.MollyBloom 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Advertisements on Google look just like Maxwell article

message: Wiki Entry:  Harrison Arlington "Pete" Williams Jr. (December 10, 1919 – November 17, 2001) was a Democrat who represented New Jersey in both the United States House of Representatives (1953-1957) and the United States Senate (1959-1982). Williams was convicted in 1980 for taking bribes in the Abscam sting operation, and resigned from the U.S. Senate in 1982 before a planned expulsion vote. Williams is one of numerous public officials known to have ackowledged drinking problems during the time.
Okay. Here is a bio of someone who was actually convicted. True, with Maxwell, it was only an adverse ruling at an early step in civil litigation. It is relevant because it (1) shows the character of this man who had no evidence to show he provided informed consent; and (2) it shows an important issue in med mal litigation, and this case, in particular. However, Maxwell admitted drinking problems, and entering rehab. SHould we include that in a biography? It is probably a more serious issue that a surgeon have a drinking problem, than a politician. And probably more unusual (or certainly I would hope).
This is what a 'real' biography, and not an advertisement is. The real issue is that Oliver wants a puff piece /advertisement/ hagiography on his mentor, and pants to push a POV on silicone breast implants, as he did on the BI article. This is not a respectful use of WIkopedia. MollyBloom 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography is defined as a story of a person's ''life''