Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas

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. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas

Does not appear to meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), Wikipedia:Notability (people) for authors, or Wikipedia:Notability (books). Possible violation of WP:VAIN. AED 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the concerned Individual. I have been guided to this page by my friend. There are enough proof (Publisher Web Site) that I have actually written those books. Hence the criteria of Verifiability has been satisfied. How can you deny that I have written 6 books. Being the concerned person, I oppose to the words "non-notable".

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) : I satisfy the following points

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources. (Area of Expertise - Entrance Preparation. If you do not even know what it means, it is regarding coaching students for various entrance examinations in India
The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. Same as above. See www.rxpgonline.com or www.aippg.net/forum or www.netmedicos.com or www.targetpg.com to know the questions directed at me
The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 6 Books (entire books and not just papers) that are selling well in India are proof for academic work

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (That has been given)
Self-publication - 4 books Published by the leading Medical Publisher in Asia. remember that there are publishers in Asia also
Sales numbers - You have to consider this with the usual number of Medical books sold in India (with the number of seats in Medical Schools here) and not compare this with Harold Robbins or Dan Brown. Any how, you can always contact the publishers

Wikipedia:Notability (people)1. Published authors, - Rest of the points already given

WP:VAINAn article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in WikipediaDoctor Bruno 01:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Relatively junior doctor who has written some non-notable exam-cram books of limited shelf-life. Colin°^Talk 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can I know as to how this user may justify your insulting terms like "non-notable" "exam-cram" "limited shelf life". Is he a publisher / distributor / book seller who can comment about my book. Or did he call them and verify. One should note that the WP:V criteria holds true not only for the articles but also for the allegations made against a person in these pages

I accept that I am a junior doctor. But can the user show the regulation or guidelines in Wikipedia that prescribes the minimum age for notability

I strongly condemn his allegations which are baseless and totally a result of your imagination and are made with ulterior motive of insulting a person on the debate page. How can one pass a judgement even without reading the book (or even seeing it)Doctor Bruno 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if Dr Bruno finds my comments insulting; they are not intended to be. My personal opinion is all that is required on this page - WP:V applies only on article-space. You are welcome to disagree with me, and clearly do. To answer your challenge: I have read some of one online version of Dr Bruno's books at this site. I think it is reasonable to assume all six books are of a similar kind, given the titles. I completely stand by everything I said, including the nominator's comment that the article/subject fails all three notability guidelines.:

Doctors need to be significant experts in a medical discipline, not in examination/training. Otherwise every teacher and lecturer would have a Wikipedia page. Dr Bruno's books are not "textbooks" according to my definition - they list exam questions, highlight the correct multi-choice answer, cite the actual authoritative textbook from which answer can be obtained, and provide some additional information/guidance.
Books - See Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria (academic books).
People - Full requirement is "Published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

The "junior doctor" statement is not given to indicate that age should prevent the subject having an article. Merely to show that in terms of the medical world, this person has not (yet) risen to the level where one might expect to be notable (professor, consultant, etc). Regards, Colin°^Talk 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the following words - Dr Bruno's books are not "textbooks" according to my definition I repeat that I satisfy the criteria given by Wikipedia. Each one of you will have one definition for textbook and a book cannot satisfy all your whims and fancies

Coming to your comments

With reference to the academic books, the guidelines are Academic books are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, are not sold in most bookstores, and may only be available in specialized libraries. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick.

COming to the individual criteria

Is the book printed by a reputable or well known academic press? Jaypee Brothers is the biggest publisher of Medical Books in India
How widely cited is the book by other publications/media? For this inquiry, be especially mindful of how specialized the book's subject is and, thus, how circumscribed both the book's audience and the body of literature in the area may be.
How well known is the author in general, and how well know is the author in the field of interest covered by the book? You can search in google regarding AIIMS, All India PG, TNPSC, TNPG, etc or you can visit the sites www.rxpgonline.com www.aippg.com www.netmedicos.com
How influential is the book considered in its specialty area? Unless you are in India, I don't think you can answer this question. My books along with Other authors like Mudhit Khanna, Sumer Sethi, Amit, Aashish are the current books followed in India
Is the book known to be taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions? No

Hence the book satisfies 4 criteria followed by Wikipedia. Please note the the published work means both papers as well as text books

I have to disagree with the following words I think it is reasonable to assume all six books are of a similar kind, given the titlesThis is highly insulting. If you don't have the patience or time to go through the entire material evidence, then you should refrain from voting. Please note that YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO ASSUME ABOUT MY BOOKSOf the six books, two (PrePG Medicine Handbook and TNPSC Interview Buster are textbooks)

With reference to the words Merely to show that in terms of the medical world, this person has not (yet) risen to the level where one might expect to be notable (professor, consultant, etc) I would like to tell that I am a consultant at www.rxpgonline.com www.aippg.com and www.netmedicos.com Hence this statement again is baseless and totally imaginatory.

Hence I guess that the user will look into the matter as a whole and decide.Doctor Bruno 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my assumption that all the books are similar. Dr Bruno has kindly pointed out that he considers two of them as "textbooks", though admits that neither are actually "known to be taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions".

The first is "PrePG Medicine Handbook". This is a book, originally authored by two PG students called Zulfi and Raj. Hence the full name is Zulfi Raj's Pre-PG Medicine Handbook. According to the cover photo, this was revised (for the 3rd edition) by Dr Bruno. From what I have been able to gather, it is a supplemental handbook to be used alongside Harrison. According to Dr Bruno[1] it contains 2% of Harrison but "that 2 % of Harrison you get from Zulfi Raj will help you answer 20 % of Question from Harrison". The only recommendations to buy this book (indeed, the only information on this book) comes from one of Dr Bruno's own web sites, the sites of his affiliates and from Dr Bruno's own postings on forums. The following forum discussion regarding the book has Dr Bruno explaining the copyright situation regarding condensing Harrison.

The second is "TNPSC Interview Buster". Details of this book can be found here. It is published by TargetPG, who appear to be affiliates of Dr Bruno. This is effectively self-published. It may be a comprehensive guide to passing your medical interview, but that doesn't count as a "textbook" to me. This book fails on all counts of notability.

I used the word "consultant" in the UK medical meaning: Consultant (medicine). Sorry for any confusion.

Regards, Colin°^Talk 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are trying to cover up your own mistakes of having cast a hasty vote and insulting sentences in the first place

You have very well said that ONE Book is self published. But you have intentionally ignored that 5 other books are published by reputed firm. I am sure that 5 is greater than one

You have very well said that ONE Book is the revised edition. But you have intentionally ignored that 5 other books are own works. I am sure that 5 is greater than one.

One more Question - Is the Notability (Book) criteria intented for having an article about the book or the article about the author Doctor Bruno 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I haven't made myself crystal clear. I accept only two very minor changes to my original comments:

One of the six books is not an exam-cram book. It is a self-published guide to passing medical entrance interviews.
Not all five exam cram books are the same. One of them is not based on the past-questions-with-answers format but is a condesed supplement to real textbooks (such as Harrison). In addition, Dr Bruno is not the original author.

Let me also make it clear that I still do not regard any of the books as textbooks (i.e. a book worthy of being the set-text in an education establishment). The Notability (Book) criteria are for an article on the book. Very few published authors are notable. If one of Dr Bruno's books was notable in itself, then that might help establish that the author might be notable. IMO they are not and he is not.

I am more than prepared to revise my opinion if an indpendent experienced Wikipedia editor can show that I have misinterpreted the Notability guidelines. Colin°^Talk 09:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Delete as per nom, plus article subject is highly unpleasant about the whole matter, and seems very keen on rule lawyering when he himself has taken rather dubious moves, and utterly failed to demonstrate his notability or good reason to be in this encyclopedia. Maybe this article might be more suitable on wiki:hi, wiki:mr or wiki:kn? --Svartalf 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not able to comprehend as to what this user feels about Unpleasant. I have not done anything unpleasant, except pointing out the mistakes committed by User Svartalf in this debate If pointing out the mistakes of the user is termed as unpleasant, then I cannot help it

The point regarding notability issue has been given below. I am again not able to understand as to why this user says that I have failed to demonstrate the notability.

Any way, the very reason that this SAME user has been keeping on recommending the article to be deleted (and has been recommending about me on various other user talk pages also) makes me suspect that this particular person acts in bad faith and wants to tarnish my image

If the user is ready to engage in a meaningful debate by answering the points given below, then I can be of helpDoctor Bruno 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been guided to this page by my friend. There are enough proof (Publisher Web Site) that I have actually written those books. Hence the criteria of Verifiability has been satisfied. How can any one deny that I have written 6 books. Being the concerned person, I oppose to the words "non-notable".

Any one can verify with the Publishers whether such books have been published or not. [2] [3] Or you can mail them. Or you can call them and confirm

How can one assume that there is no verifiability even without verifying Can the user tell what steps were taken to make sure that there is no notability. Did he call the publisher or book seller. One can tell that it is not his duty to call a publisher to verify notability. Then he should refrain from claiming that the book is non-notable

Just because a book is not available in Amazon, it does not mean that such a book does not exist Doctor Bruno 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, since the concerned person has repeatedly tried to blank both his page and this AfD discussion, better give him his wish.--Svartalf 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I request your kind attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete it. Hence, I guess, as per policies, I have every right to delete an article about me. I don't want guys who have NO (I repeat NO) knowledge about Indian Books pass judgement about my merit unnecessarily. The article was proposed for deletion first on notability. When I proved notability, it has changed to Vanity. I guess it is some one who does not like me trying to tarnish my name. This is a phenomenon that has been emerging in Wikipedia. Since they cannot write rubbish in the main article, they nominate the article for deletion and vent all the frustations (non-notable, limited shelf-life etc). One guy has written that the author is non-notable since he has "never read the book". I have never read any plays of Shakespeare. Can I tell that Shakespeare is non-notable just because I have not read the books. If there is any doubt regarding the books, one can always email or phone the publisher. Instead, nominating biographies for deletion and then slandering the individual has been the recent (sorry) phenomenon in Wikipedia.

I find that you have recommended that my biography be deleted.

WHen I prove that the AFD does not hold as per the established guidelines you take it as an offence and ask whether the subject can intervene. I have intervened only as per the above guidelines.

Please note the policy. And one final request. Before keeping or deleting an article, be sure to read everything

Wrong Information being given about me by USER AED. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AED Doctor Bruno 02:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. Rewster 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify as to how My Biography is Vanity, before recommending that for deletionDoctor Bruno 05:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no commercial links.
There are no Vanity links.
There are no Vanity photos.
There are no Vanity text edits.

On the other hand, I invite your attention to the following guidelines

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia
Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.Doctor Bruno 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unhesitatingly~~ Strong and speedy Delete I am a graduate (MBBS) & post-graduate (MD) from Delhi, India, and am myself a doctor with extensive education and major contributions to two international textbooks. I have no hesitation in recommending a delete for this article written for self-propogation. The use of Wikipedia is to spread information, not project one's own self. The very fact that one has written an article about one's own self on a public website is suggestive of vanity. Otherwise all doctors would write and have a page dedicated to them, since at least some of them and their patients may think that they are famous.

Moreover, books written should have a purpose other than 'made for cramming' exams like the Post-Graduate (PG) medical entrance in India - indeed a short half-life. Compare that with widely read books like Harrison's Principles & Practice of Internal Medicine, or Bailey & Love's Short Practice of Surgery, which are authoritative texts with multiple editions and enduring reference value. Frankly, I never read this particular author's "books" to prepare for my PG entrance exams in Delhi, nor heard about him from my extended group of doctor/medical student/PG friends all over North India. Otherwise also, doctors like Salgunan, Bhatia et al could claim to be much more widely read authors of such "best-sellers", with an evidently much wider circulation.

However, a new article about Post-Graduate entrance exams in India may be written with a "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV), which can include a listing of the main authors of PG entrance exam books rankwise (probably based on concrete evidence of copies sold, not necessarily "Out of print") and mention his name in the appropriate place - that should be acceptable. EyeMD 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you assume that there is no verifiability even without verifying Can you tell what steps did you take to make sure that there is no notability. Did you call the publisher or book seller. YOu can tell that it is not your duty to call a publisher to verify notability. Then you should refrain from claiming that the book is non-notable

Attention RewsterThe debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.The very fact that you have not given any arguments, and also falied to answer my points prove that you have malicious intention in defaming meDoctor Bruno 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Svartalf

Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a deleted part between <s> and </s>, as in "~~Delete~~ Speedy keep".

The very fact that you did not even take time to read the basic intructions, but has wanted this article to be deleted shows that you are hell bent on defaming me and not on maintaining Good Spirit of Wikipedia. How can you justify is recommending for deletion more than one time

You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.Doctor Bruno 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intervene only in those where I think I grasp the problem well enough to talk. Thanks for your concern. --Svartalf 19:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the established guidelines of WP:AFD, one (who grasps the problem well enough) should modify his original recommendation rather than adding a new one Unfortunately, I see some one (probably with malicious intend) voting more than one times and that too without giving any specific valid reason and not responding to questions and that is a point of concernDoctor Bruno 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per established rules, blanking an article out of due process, and a fortiori an AfD discussion page is not allowed either. Add to it that if I erased my "second vote to get legit again, your comments to it would definitely stop making any sense... I let it stay. plus, since you take malicious intent out, do you have any reasons why I should bear malice to an unnotable person half a word away from me? You had better have pretty solid grounds to go agains WP:AGF. Unless your obnoxiousness is a usual trait and you're used to people hating you. --Svartalf 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about your mistake of trying your level best to delete this article ignoring all the basic rules. You can see the pages in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_4

DO you see in all those articles the peculiar phenonemon of same person voting three times for the same article to be deleted. When you are going to this extent (that too inspite of me giving all the proof for notifiability and verifiability) and citing new reasons such as unpleasant behaviour in the debate page (remember that my replies were posted AFTER your messages - In such a context, what is your justification for your initial message asking this article to be deleted) as the reason for deletion (since you have no valid reason) how can you I assume Good Faith. In the present circumstances, after verifying with publishers and book sellers and various web sites pertaining to Entrance Exams in India, if you can give a reasonable opinion, that is AGP

Even if you take your "vote to get legit" how can you deny that you had voted more than once. And what is the reason for this strange phenomenon. It implies that for reasons unfathomable, you have a biased view against me. How can a biased person decide about the notability Doctor Bruno 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a borderline notability case if you ask me, but the apparent vanity pushes me toward deletion as the proper rationale. Doctor Bruno: I am sure you are very experienced, and you should stay around as an editor of other pages because your knowledge could really help the project. It's also very possible that a disinterested party could author a suitable article on you in the future. It just isn't proper for you to be editing your own article, though. Read WP:AUTO. If you're not convinced, look at this AfD compared to the others on the list of articles up for AfD. Erechtheus 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) The user assures me he did not create his own article - he made a couple of recent edits out of frustration due to the charge of non-notability. I think he understands that was not the proper course of action and will limit activity to the talk page in the future. Due to the borderline nature of the notability, I change my opinion to weak keep.Erechtheus 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per EyeMD. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EyeMD first said that the subject is not notable. After proving the notability, he has switched over saying that it is violation of WP:AUTO. I strongly feel that this is an attempt by some guys who do not like me in real world. If you could see the basis for nominating the article has changed from Notability to Vanity to AutoBio. I invite your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you I did not write this article in the first place. I am forced to edit here to avoid my name being slandered. Hope you look into the matter deeply. Doctor Bruno 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete does not meet notability criteria in the least. Fails WP:BIO by a longshot. Writing exam cram books does not make you notable as an author or physician. -- Samir धर्म 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - wrote a few tip-books on how to pass exams, this is not medical notability, you need reserach papers and academic textbooks for this stuff.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guidelines do not say that Exam-Oriented-books are not notable and only text books are notable. Can you please show a guideline like that. Also a writing a book needs more research and effort than a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

Not necessarily true, when I finished my high schooling, I wrote my own solutions to exams for the Australian Chemistry Olympiad and Australian Physics Olympiad (totalling more than 200 hand-written pages) and photocopied them and gave them to my high school so that future students could use them if they found them helpful. Five years later, I still haven't done any original research that could result in a 2 page publication in a proper physics research journal. I know that my notes haven't been published in any particular way, but it is similar to a lot of high school teachers who make their own exam solutions manuals and sell them to students. Personally, I'd rather not have some high school Chemistry teachers have their own bio seeing as a lot of them (in Australia anyway) seem to think that 1M of H2SO4 gives 2M H+ for instance, or don't know what NMR spectroscopy is or then think that the alpha-hydrogen of 2-propanol gives rise to a septuplet splitting due to the bogus rule "methyl makes four" rather than realise that there are 6 adjacent hydrogens for the n+1 rule. Also you see most high school physics teachers say stuff like "mass increases as speed increases", so to be honest (imho), I don't personally trust academic publications by people with bachelor's degrees unless they have got scientific publications. As for the WP:BIO, it is a guideline, which is not a rock-solid rule, and this is my personal opinion. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't compare Xeroxed (photo copied) versions of "notes" with a text book published by the biggest publisher of medical books of a country with 1000 million population. It is very clear that the own handwritten notes which are photocopied are non notable (and non verifiable also) and a book with ISBN Number published by a publisher and available in online medical stores is notable. These are not to be compared. Even I had compiled a question and answer quide to be used by students of Devendra College of Physiotherapy in 2003. My notes have been used by a lot of juniors. They are non notable. Doctor Bruno 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I am changing tack since my original argument on Monday as to why I feel this article should be deleted. As I said before WP:BIO is a guideline - there is no magic formula. I never presumed that I was of similar notability to you because of my comment about the solutions to the Olympiad papers which I wrote for students at my old high school - I simply used this to explain your comment that writing solution manuals and exam guides are not at the same level of academic achievement as doing original research and formulating new theories and experiments. My comment about high school teachers selling lots of Yr 12 solutions manuals and study guides still holds - most of them cannot remember what they learnt in first year university which is why I'm saying that I don't automatically trust the academic worthiness of material published by a person with a bachelor's degree outside of scientific journal publications. My comment about my home-made volunteer notes were only to reply to your suggestion that a solutions manual takes more skill than to do original research. Personally I disagree with this. I am not being stubborn and refusing to switch because I have been "proven wrong" - I am still unconvinced. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- To clarify my comment, I don't believe that the academic bar is passed in this case; we have a person with a bachelor degree who is writing exam study-guides. I guess I could meet that criteria by joining a dodgy club with a few other guys from high school who write exam guides and get myself on WP as a physicist? Generally a person who writes reputable textbooks will have a research record and is a university academic. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion is about Books. I never said that I have got a PhD. Please don't invent criterias to justify the initial hasty (wrong) vote (or opinion) based on wrong criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

I am well aware that you never claimed to have a PhD. There is no concrete criteria by which notability guidelines must be enforced. I can't think of a case of an exam guide author having a bio or being AfD'd before, so I don't know of any precedent which may be used to make a guideline in WP:BIO for exam guides. Maybe this would be a good test case. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The simple fact is that WIkipedia's guidelines just say the following points

Published by a reputed source
Not self published
Has ISBN Number

There is NO RULE in wikipedia that differentiates Exam-Oriented-Books published by Reputed firms and Text Books Published by reputed firms. Following the current concepts, you have to treat this as any book with ISBN published by reputed firm. The invention of new criteria of exam books to justfiy the initial hasty vote is the main problem with this discussion

- Never I have seen an author valued using his Degree. By the way, is it a crime to write books before you do post graduationDoctor Bruno 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case we are measuring you as an academic, so we are looking for reaserch level publications and university textbooks. No it is not a crime to write books before graduation.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just curious sake - Why can't you measure as an published author Doctor Bruno 07:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you measuring as an academic. Consider it as an author of 6 Exam Oriented Medical Books.

We can: requirement is "Published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Colin°^Talk 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to say that if there are reviews/awards, even a junior doctor with no post graduate degree is notable. WHy did you first give another reason. You seem to be searching for reasons to delete this artilce ??Doctor Bruno 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least now do you agree that your initial hasty comment was a mistake. The very fact that you have changed your points three times show that you have misinterpreted the notability guidelines and your only aim is deleting the article without going into the actual merits of the case but based on some reason. If you had given the reply you give now (after I countered all you previous baseless arguments) on the first instance itself, I may not have said a word in this page and let the independent editors decide. At least now realise your mistakes and don't repeat it and insult another person in Wikipedia in future. Any how, thanks for changing your stance after being pointed out. Few guys do not even have that courtesyDoctor Bruno 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even a small child from an ordinary family can be notable, if they have recieved substansial press coverage for some reason, despite their lack of any qualifications. Quacks and conartists again are easily noteworthy if they become famous. Qualifications alone does not make anyone noteworthy, meerly more of an authority on a subject LinaMishima 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Samir & Blnguyen. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of their points have been well countered. Unless you give some good explanation against my points nominating based on their opinion (which has been countered by evidence) makes me believe that you have not read the discussion, but is giving a hasty vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

I still stand by my comment & thoroughly agree with the additional arguments given by Blnguyen. I do not believe that your arguments have established your notablity & I do not appreciate your insinuation that I have not read the discussion before commenting. Your apparent hostility against everyone isn't likely to intimidate anyone. I suggest that you tone down your comments a bit. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Does not appear notable. Cedars 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the criteria given in WP:BIO for published authors is very well satisfiedDoctor Bruno 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be vanity WilyD 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained clearly as to why this article is not vanity. Please be kind enough to read the discussions and then give your opinion and don't give the opinion in haste and then try to justify Doctor Bruno 01:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)it.[reply]

I read the discussion. I makes a convincing case for my argument - and it's here for everyone to see. WilyD 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify as to how My Biography is Vanity, before recommending that for deletion

There are no commercial links.
There are no Vanity links.
There are no Vanity photos.
There are no Vanity text edits.

On the other hand, I invite your attention to the following guidelines

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia
Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Can you please Let me know as to how you explain Vanity in this case. I had already asked this question in the discussion to another user who recommended Vanity. He has not answered, but he has been going to various Talk pages and is trying to get people vote against me. Please try to explain or please change the opinionDoctor Bruno 01:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity means that he suspects that you, your family, your organisation/associates were responsible for the creation of this page. Vanity isn't really a deletion criteria, but simply doesn't look good - when quoted in deletion debates, it normally implies that the commenter feels that it is nn and vanity, but I don't want to put words into WilyD's mouth.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am saying.

The initial claim was Verifiability - They said that there were no books even without caring to check for it. I proved that I have written those books. After I had successfully countered the claim, the criteria for deletion changed

After they found that the article was verifiable and that they could not argue on that point, they changed the criteria to notability. When it was proved that the subject has written 6 medical books with ISBN Numbers and published by the biggest medical publisher in India and the current concept and the established guidelines of Wikipedia does not differentiate between Text Books / Fiction / Exam Oriented Book, there were insulting remarks like junior doctor / academic qualifications etc. I have proved that All those claims were inappropriate

The present claim is Vanity. Now even BInguyen agrees that "Vanity isn't really a deletion criteria"

The only reason for including this criteria is to discredit and defame me. If you want proof, I can give you examples as to how few users are going around all talk pages and trying to gather opinion against me

There are two reasons for this debate

Few Users do not like me in real world and want to tarnish my name. If you want proof, I can give examples. I have already shown that to few users personally and don't want to dilute the main discussion. They have not responded to my question here (where as the genuine wikipedians have responded here and also at my talk page) but drag my name into controversy at various talk pages and discussions
Few Users (Genuine Wikipedians) have given a hasty vote and just want to justify their initial mistake. Their ego prevents them from going back and rectifying their own mistakes. SO to defend their initial hasty vote, they invent new criteria

One user's initial comment was "junior doctor" "exam-cram books" of "limited shelf-life". He was not able to substantiate any of the reasons. It was well decided that age is not a criteria. The user has no right to label "limited Shelf life" even without seeing the books. And there is no criteria that differentiates Exam Oriented books from Text Books [4] The user did not stop with this. He went to the extent of saying that one of my books was self published and hence not notable. But he intentionally avoided mentioning that 5 of the books have been published by reputed firms and hence they are notable. THis is a clear cut case of personal bias and not staying neutral
One user's comment was Vanity. When it has been proved that I am not the creator of the article, he has not responded. Also I have proved using the existing guidelines as to why this is not vanity. What pains me is the fact that there are users who do not have the patience of reading my well quoted points, but just give their hasty opinion
After that It was pointed out that I don't have an post graduation. There is no criteria as to say that only doctors with post graduation has to write books or that only those with post graduation are notable. This criteria was later withdrawn

In short I have clearly proved that this article satisfies all the established and current criteria and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you have any doubt regarding any particular point, discuss that and I am ready to respond

And please don't compare Xeroxed (photo copied) versions of "notes" with a text book published by the biggest publisher of medical books of a country with 1000 million population. It is very clear that the own handwritten notes which are photocopied are non notable (and non verifiable also) and a book with ISBN Number published by a publisher and available in online medical stores is notable. These are not to be compared. Even I had compiled a question and answer quide to be used by students of Devendra College of Physiotherapy in 2003. My notes have been used by a lot of juniors. They are non notable. Doctor Bruno 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem has been brought out by one user. It is a simple case of not differentiating between a published book and photocopied notes. Doctor Bruno 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise

1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words2. Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria3. Notability (doctor) You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [5]www.aippg.net/forum[6] and www.netmedicos.com [7] and unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area (PG Preparation), you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help.

Then

Regarding the counter points1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.

My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent new guideline. Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that NOT ALL MY BOOKS are question answer books. I have contributed 6 chapters to the Pre PG Medicine Handbook and 6 chapters merit more attention than an Paper.Doctor Bruno 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read this page carefully and the arguments put by both sides. This page makes me deeply uncomfortable. While Doctor Bruno may be satisfying the letter of the rules and while he may be very adept at quoting them I feel he is violating their spirit. As far as I can see, that appears to be the core underpinning of many of the delete arguments here.

Writing/ not writing a minimum number of books or having/ not having a PhD is not the issue -- it is the subject's notability. For all the scraping over the minimum level of the "notability bar" that Doctor Bruno is claiming to have achieved, in practice there appears to be no evidence that he has actually achieved it. He is not actually notable in people's minds.

Perhaps, with his level of audacity he will be in the future. But right now, this article is simply not in the spirit of Wikipedia. 193.129.65.37 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there appears no evidence, You can do a google test and find about the notability. You can look at AIPPG [8] and Netmedicos [9]

This is really amusing. When it has been proved beyond doubt the rules are in favour of keeping the article and only the user's ego of getting back on the initial hasty decision and few persons' personal vendetta leads to deleting the article, we get a comment from anonymous user telling about the spirit.

This proves my earlier claims that there are forces working against me with the sole intention of deleting this article irrespective of wikipedian guidelines. They keep giving various criteria for deleting and after it has been successfully argued that the guidelines are very clear regarding keeping the article as per the opinion of one user who says that satisfying the letter of the rulesDoctor Bruno 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly a Strong Delete. There is an element of paranoia concerning Doctor Bruno's responses that I find disturbing. I am unaffiliated with the people who initially chose to nominate this page for deletion. However, I find myself in strong agreement with them. I am NOT part of some international ring committed to persecuting Doctor Bruno. Frankly, I have better people to persecute.

My feelings are very similar to those of user 193.129.65.37. Whether he remains anonymous or not is irrelevent to the validity of his comments. This is about the spirit of Wikipedia rules - not about their wording per se. We are not lawyers bound to argue over the triviality of individual words. We are looking at which articles contribute to the essence of what Wikipedia is. This article does not.

It is hard precisly to define why it doesn't. This may infuriate Dr. Bruno but is merely part of the underlying difficulties of the English language. It is very inadequate at explaining certain concepts. For instance it's harder to explain what a table is than to know one when you see it. Similarly, it's hard to explain what is notable but it's easy to know it when you see it. Doctor Bruno might like to read the book Blink before saying that people can't make judgements without wading through lots and lots of his verbose arguments.

This is my best attempt at explaining why this article doesn't work:

1. The focus group Doctor Bruno says his name is notable within (a particular set of people chosing to take a particular set of exams within a particular field in a particular country) is already very limited. And yet, I find myself wondering, were I to take a blind sampling of such people and show them a photo of Doctor Bruno or ask them if they recognised his name - would they say they recognised him as a leading light?

2. The web sites Doctor Bruno provides do not, I think, provide proof of notability in and of themselves. They have the appearance of vanity publications themselves - like Who's Who in Engineering or Journalism... as opposed to the original Who's Who. A quick search for Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas in MyWay.com (which uses Ask, Google, Yahoo and Look Smart) shows most of the links to Doctor Bruno are to his own web site - not external pieces on him. The few that aren't again appear to be meta lists of vanity web pages. While not proof, this is an indication that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics just aren't talking about this gentleman.

3. For a doctor and a gentleman I find Bruno's language to be not far off brow-beating in its intensity. I would recommend Doctor Bruno, if he is as notable as claimed, asks some of his more detached supporters (who have less self-invested emotional interest in the article) to outline positive reasons for its inclusion.

These arguments don't do my position full justice (as outlined above). But I feel they give an adequate indication of my unease. There is, quite clearly, little notability here as far as I can see. I'm sure that will change in time and I wish Doctor Bruno luck in the future. Coricus 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an after thought on "the word of the rules versus their intention", I'd like to refer Doctor Bruno to the comments at the top of Wikipedia's page on People and Notability. It says: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included." - in other words: follow the rules unless Wikipedians tend to feel they shouldn't be followed in a particular case. That would appear to be the instance here. Coricus 07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to say that the rules shouldn't be followed if say 20 guys are against that Doctor Bruno 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Again, you attempt to use specifics to counter a generality. It is a very tiresome form of deconstructionist argument that loses its fascination quickly for people who don't like debate simply for the sake of it. If I give you an answer you will merely retort "well, if not 20 people then how about 21, or 22?".

Such pedantry on your part does not alter my opinion. 3 books, 6 books, 156 books make little difference. Notability is not the same as how much you've been published - or every journalist in the world would appear in Wikipedia. It is about the essence of notability. Quite simply -- how many people would say "I know him" if I stood in a particular place at a particular time and said "Who knows this guy?". I think you fail that test. I have outlined my reasons and I feel your retorts are motivated by ego. Coricus 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be my retorts are motivated by ego, but my simple question is how can you think that the test will fail even without doing that and that is not verifiability. Every one can think anything, but wikipedia is based on verifiability and not on imaginary researches like if i ask. If any one of the editors here had infact tried this test and then said not notable, I would not have retorted But that is not the case.Doctor Bruno 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly trolling. This discussion is going around in circles. The closest proxy we have for the test concerned is a web page search. I conducted one and, as mentioned above could find no evidence that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics are talking about you. Coricus 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Bruno posted the following comments to my personal page. I feel they indicate a willful, almost troll-like, desire towards pedantry. My opinion remains that this article should be deleted. Coricus 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I respect your words that reporters, external peer reviewed journals and other academics just aren't talking about this gentleman and hence the subject is not notable. You should also understand that I never disagreed with people who gave such decent explanations. On the other hand, you should also understand that it may be insulting when some one invents criteria like exam books/ junior doctor etc It was against those words that I choose to argue.

But I disagree with your words that I ask some of his more detached supporters to outline positive reasons for its inclusion That, I feel is a wrong way to do this. The case should be argued on the basis of merits and not based on the number of people supporting it (as it has been done now). Again this sentence make me doubt that you have misunderstood my intentions. I was arguing not to "keep" the article, but to protest against the hasty decisions and invention of new criteria in justifying facts.

And your words a particular set of people chosing to take a particular set of exams within a particular field in a particular country is again a misinterpretation. It is about EVERY ONE in a particular field in a particular country taking the COMMON Exam after Undergraduation. The exam is taken by some 60,000 doctors every year. Hence I feel that you have not understood the reality correctly and is of the wrong opinion regarding the limited scope. The scope is of course limited, but not as limited as you could think of.

And you have not given any reason as to why an author of 6 books is non-notableDoctor Bruno 07:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting extraordinarily annoyed by your redundant and useless commentary. Hate to break it to you but consensus here defines the rules. Do you have even one Pubmed citation? Even one? Cause I sure couldn't find any [10]. This practically meets speedy deletion as A7. Don't try to twist arguments into your favour; you can't even get a tenure track position on the basis of 6 exam prep books, much less an encyclopedia article!! This is a ludicrously easy to spot vanity article, and the commotion that you are raising here just shows how precious this article is to your ego. The consensus is overwhelming here that you are not notable. Go troll elsewhere. -- Samir धर्म 08:20, 11 August 2006 (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.