Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul G. King

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. I have no connections to the pharmaceutical industry, other than the cough drop that's in my mouth right now. Joyous! | Talk 00:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. King

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

This article fails WP:PROF but seeks to establish the subject's notability as a crank by association with the egregious Geiers. However, I think it fails in that aim, due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP sourcing issues and WP:FRINGE WP:COATRACK - a WP:TNT. Nom beat me by a minute. (came across this as part of COI, paid editing, so suspicious editing from new account brought me here) Widefox; talk 22:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 16 is enough to pass WP:Prof. Public activism adds to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Not an expert at Prof, but per WP:Prof "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied", so can you expand? Article currently has one ref, so fails WP:GNG. Taking into account the ref is for CoMeD rather than this BLP, I consider it counts towards the notability of CoMeD, which is preferable to this but probably also not notable. Widefox; talk 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would contributors to this AfD care to state if they have any connection to the pharmaceutical industry? I have none myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

None. To clarify, I came here via checking on sock block evasion (just blocked) /COI/suspicious accounts. Two independent editors taking to AfD at the same time is quite persuasive that this is in no way some conspiracy?! Per WP:AGF, I'm assuming that you'd like to answer my question above, rather than question other's motivation? Thanks. The sock was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethomas8585. Now to be taken up at WP:COIN. Widefox; talk 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand why that question is totally inappropriate, as well as embodying at least two fallacies, then you may not be competent to edit Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced he was impactful enough in chemistry to pass Academic Criteria 1. Chemistry as an applied science has a high citation level, and I have not seen evidence his level of citation was high enough to count as impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because the subject is a proponent of the fringe anti-vaccine movement, I feel that the citation counts are not an appropriate indication of the notability under the WP:ACADEMIC guideline, which is intended to assess an individual's mainstream scholarly impact. Many of the papers listed on Google scholar appear to be WP:FRINGE research, with lots of self-citations, and low quality open-access echo chamber citations. Google scholar is a notoriously unreliable indicator of notability of academics for those at the fringes. The most over-the-top example I know of is Florentin Smarandache. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. Disclaimer: I have no connection to the healthcare industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sławomir Biały. In WP:FRINGE cases one should not rely on raw citability data as many citations returned by GScholar are to fringe sources that do not pass WP:RS. For a high citation rate field like chemistry, a raw GScholar h-index of 16 is fairly marginal anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sławomir Biały. Preaky (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2016 (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.