Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Michael Klein

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Klein

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

Non-notable surgeon. The article does have references but they're about projects the surgeon is affiliated with, not the surgeon himself. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 02:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of Michael Klein and his contributions

Worldwide medical care is a pressing concern. Oral health offers clues about overall health, and relevant to Michael Klein's contributions, the problems in one's mouth can affect the rest of the body. In the United States baby boomers are at the age that they are likely to have at least one tooth removed. What are they going to do about it? In the 90's when Dr. Klein started his work, a person would go to his dentist, and the dentist would pull his tooth, offer a denture, or possibly recommend that he go to a specialist for an implant. All these choices were less than optimum. Implants are superior to dentures in terms of aesthetics, comfort, and durability. Being toothless or wearing ill-fitting dentures can lead in many cases to self-consciousness,embarrassment, and even depression. However, a dentist was disinclined to recommend an implant because it meant referring his patient out, and losing the lucrative fee of dentures. In addition, if he did refer out, the economic deal was that the specialist would send the patient back for a crown. This was a nightmare for the dentist because at that time over 95% of implants would connect to the bone, but 50% of these were placed in away that made it exceedingly difficult to align the crown properly. This meant a lot of back and forth with the lab, and at times the dentist looked like he had failed when in fact the problem was caused by the specialist's placement of the implant. And what patient is going to believe that the problem lies with the specialist and not his general dentist? Dr. Klein saw that their was a huge market in the States of people reaching the age that they could benefit from implants. And marketers will tell you that this group is an entitled and huge segment. Dr. Klein's invention did two critical things: 1) Now not only are over 95% of implants connected to the bone, but over 95% can be placed properly when using Dr. Klein's invention. 2) The general dentist can now perform these surgeries in most cases. And the specialist has a tool to assure that he is placing the implants optimally and avoiding doing injury.

The benefit to the U.S. health system is enormous. While Dr. Klein was developing his system, other companies were trying to do the same. However, only Dr. Klein came up with a simple system that made it practical and affordable for the general dentist to do the surgery effectively. This system is critical given the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. An inventor of a system that can benefit the health of millions and save billions of dollars for Americans is worthy of an article in Wikipedia.

Please also note that the article on Dr. Klein is written in a subdued tone and in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on writing about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looslion (talk • contribs) 9 June 2011

Comment - Promotional and celebratory in tone. There may be an article here based upon his role as an inventor, but there needs to be third-party sourcing explaining the importance of the cited patents. A list of patents doesn't "qualify" a subject as notable any more than a list of books written does... If that technology has been employed in a meaningful way, and that contribution is recognized in a substantial and verifiable source, then things change. Further, the "Dr." needs to be lost immediately from the title in the event this challenge closes as a "Keep." I'm not willing to advise "Deletion" at this point, because this might be a Keep-and-Fix deal. But there needs to be some serious work done here to demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to removing the "Dr." from the heading. I used the "Dr." to distinguish him from the other Michael Kleins that are listed in Wikipedia. I still maintain that the article is subdued, I did not use any adjectives and stayed in a descriptive mode. The patents were used to create a commercially viable surgical implant template. As noted in the article the company was bought by BioHorizons Inc. This video shows the product that was created by Dr. Klein's patents. This video is a promotional piece, but I think you can see that the general dentist trained in this system can gain expertise to do implant surgery reliably and responsibly. And if you read up on the history of dental implants and what can go wrong, this is a big deal. Looslion (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]
Here is a testimonial from a general dentist who used the system. Technology Helps an “Amateur” Place Implants by Joseph Whitehouse,DDS. Looslion (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)LoosLion[reply]
Delete I'm not finding the evidence that he is a leader in the field. Google Scholar returns only two or three hits (one patent and a couple of journal articles), and they are not widely cited; this one got the most citations (38). The number of times an article is cited is one way to judge the person's importance in the field. PubMed finds mostly articles by a German dentist of the same name. Google hits are mostly self-referential. Google News finds nothing. He may very well have helped the field of dentistry, but the required independent coverage of his contributions isn't there as far as I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I hope to have info in a few days which will address your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.151.70 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to promotional/advertisement style. He's mentioned in a Los Angeles article here, other than that zero notable results on Yahoo and Google. Also, responding to above: We don't have time to wait for your possible information, anything that we've already found is enough to delete the article. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (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.