Talk:Dale Dubin

Untitled

I have created this talk page to discuss the merits of the Dale Dubin article I created. It was speedied by DGG, and remained deleted after discussion on the article's talk page (now deleted), my talk page, and DGG's talk page. I appealed to WP:DRV but deletion was upheld here. After several admins refused or failed to userfy the content for me, I re-created the article from memory in my userspace, expanded as much as I could, and added more citations. Before I seek re-creation again, I would like community input. Should it be undeleted? Please opine below. - Draeco (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per my previous arguments. - Draeco (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What is left to be recovered from the deleted article history? More importantly, what is a plastic surgeon doing writing cardiology textbooks? Could you have conflated two different MDs with similar names? --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this. Either this is the same man, or a lot of people have conflated them. Eg, Snopes.com. --Una Smith (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the doctors at my medical school, including cardiologists, say it's the same man, even though he is a plastic surgeon. I'm not specifically wanting to recover anything from the article history, I just want to check concensus before I file a second request at WP:DRV to have it restored. - Draeco (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I lean towards leaving it deleted. I have not seen enough to suggest this person is notable enough for an article. I can be convinced otherwise if I see enough evidence of notablity.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with Dubin's work, which I agree is highly notable. I think that an article about the book would be well-justified. Once that's fleshed out, an article on the person may (or may not) seem well-justified. Those who know the book probably find it easier to understand the difference between his specialty and the subject of the book: all doctors are expected to be able to interpret ECGs at a basic level, but cardiologists would tend to write a far-too-detailed treatise on the subject. My sense is that this smart plastic surgeon developed a practical, basic approach that has helped many thousands of health professionals. Could be a lesson for people in many fields... --Scray (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dale Dubin

I think the guy is notable for good & bad reasons.

Good: He wrote what is the standard textbook of EKG interpretation (Rapid Interpretation of EKGs[1]), which has been translated into many languages. I, personally, have a copy of the book-- and it is what I'd recommend to any one that has an interest in learning how to read EKGs.

Bad: The guy is notable for being a convicted pedophile.[2][3]

The Florida medical board has a record of him -- that seems to match the stories about him losing his license and going to prison. Based on what I've read, he was a plastic surgeon.

Nephron  T|C 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Related article created

Per the suggestions of Scray (above) and several editors in the previous delete/keep discussions, I have first created a related article on Dubin's most famous book, Rapid Interpretation of EKG's. - Draeco (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Move article Dale Dubin to main space?

I would like to move the article Dale Dubin from a user's space to the main space. A discussion was started in 2009, but this died out. Discussion at User talk:Draeco/Dubin

I was looking for Dale Dubin, having read the Dutch translation of his book, like all medical students at Maastricht University, The Netherlands. I think it would be good to have an article about this person. I have found a discussion on a deleted article from 2009 that tended towards restoring, with some extra thought.

The article "Dale Dubin" was speedied by DGG, and remained deleted after discussion on the article's talk page (now deleted), the author's talk page, and DGG's talk page. Draeco, the author, appealed to WP:DRV but deletion was upheld here. After several admins refused or failed to userfy the content Draeco re-created the article and expanded it with more citation. The last request for comment (I think it was a request for comment, at User talk:Draeco/Dubin), seemed to be in favor of restoring, with the creation of the best known book he has written and more citations in the main space. The article about the book has been created a long time ago, Rapid Interpretation of EKG's, and the new article has enough references, I have added one myself. Please give your opinion on moving this article to the main article space. Thank you for your time, Taketa (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I read over the article and it's references, is it possible to expand it some more? At the moment it is quite short briefly discussing his conviction for child pornography and his career and doesn't seem to have changed much since 2009 when it got deleted. Or am I wrong? Surely there is more to write about this guy if he is notable? No? Or expand on what is already written? No?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what was deleted in 2009. I am not an admin. Most certainly there is more to write. There always is. But I think it will be little things that won't make him more noteworthy compared to the things in the article now. Adding a personal life and website or stuff like that won;t make the article more notable and I have better ways to spend my time to be honest. So I am not going to make those changes. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A Google search for "Dale Dubin", EKG yields ~ 170,000 hits.[4] His book is very widely read. Compare this with Vinay Kumar (pathologist), a writer of another widely read medical textbook; he yields ~95,000 Google hits.[5] It seems reasonable to re-create based on WP:BOLD. I suspect the article was deleted, in part, because of the bad things he did. Nephron  T|C 20:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As the creator, I have always felt Dale Dubin should be a main namespace article. The threshold for notability might have changed in the two years since I've been active, but I believe it met the old standard. The article was originally deleted around the time that WP:BLP was new and powerful, and it seemed Dubin's article was deleted mostly because it had negative information about him, even though his convictions are part of the public record. - Draeco (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This man was smart but chose to go down the path of evil. His big ego got the best of him. 47.202.157.4 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Bring this up to WP:BLP standards first. The EKG book is, but the arrest and conviction on pron charges should not be given undue weight. Remove such terms as "infamy" and remove primary sources (FL license). EKG book is still an Amazon major seller. And can you find out more about the person besides the porn and book? Collect (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have made changes following your suggestions. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 Remark: It has been two weeks. I would like to thank everybody for their input. Comments were given on bringing the negative sections and sources up to WP:BLP standards and expanding the article. Most remarks seem to support moving, or not object it. The suggested changes have been made, and since expending is not vital, I have moved the article to the mainspace following WP:BOLD. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Recently received a request for comment re this article. I'd suggest providing a citation for "bestselling", removing or citing the word "prized", and perhaps including an introductory sentence at the start of the article, explaining clearly who he is and why he's notable. I'm not suggesting he isn't notable, it's just that I had to read the article a few times to clearly grasp the key elements. Perhaps, we could also know a little bit more about the last two books - a sentence precis for each? isfutile:P (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)