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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Santibanez-Gallerani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely non notable figure in my field. This is a vanity bio for PR Droliver (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I see 13 articles in peer-reviewed journals, which is not that much, but not negligible. Very spammy, but i removed some of it. I ask the nom, what criteria is he using to evaluate? Perhaps he can help us judge more accurately. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG, wikification of surgeons should be reserved for truly outstanding figures in the field rather then part of someone's marketing campaign (as this entry is clearly aimed at Google searches). Keep in mind that this MD has been in practice 3 YEARS and the references are mostly journal filler done during this person's medical school and residency years.Droliver (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to findings of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (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.