Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen G. Hall

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. Obviously not notable -- snow close DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen G. Hall

Checkuser note: For the closing administrator: I have just blocked a large number of sockpuppets who have been directly involved in the editing of this article. I have noted below the comment added by one of the accounts that has now been blocked for socking. Risker (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just spent the better part of an hour adding references to this article and trying to establish the subject's notability. I have concluded that he does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC and the article should be deleted. The article claims significant work in the field of vaccines and immunization, and that is the focus of the company he founded; that sounds important. However, I could find very little coverage of him, and literally nothing at Google Scholar (it is hard to search because he has a very common name, but adding "vaccine" as a disambiguator did not help). The article was written entirely by a collection of special purpose accounts, and pretty much all the information is either unreferenced or referenced to primary sources. I am willing to be convinced of his notability, but so far I have not seen the evidence and I recommend deletion. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also tried to find information related to notability but could not. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame of Grand Canyon University, but I've never heard of this school. I find the excessive editing by SPA (and IP-accounts coming from Indiana) very suspicious and disruptive (they repeatedly reverted the orphan/refimprove/primary sources improvement requests added to the article). As you can see he only has three links to his page, and one is Stephen Hall (disambiguation). At the very best, it's WP:TNT. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was your request for page protection that called the article to my attention. I was really hoping I could fix the problems identified in your tags, but was unable to find the needed sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, I could only find single-digit citation counts in Google scholar for this particular Stephen G. Hall (there is an economist with the same name who is much better cited.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: & @MelanieN: I noticed this too - the British economist Stephen G. Hall is much better suited to this article. He has an extensive list of works at VIAF. I'd be happy to build an article on him but I have a feeling it would be constantly reverted by the fan club of the current article. Any idea how to proceed? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. I would suggest you wait until this discussion has run its course. If the result is delete, then all the history and everything connecting it to the biochemist would be gone, and you could create a new "Stephen G. Hall" article without any baggage. If anyone tries to G4 the new article you can just point out that this is a completely different article from the one that was deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: thanks, I'll keep an eye on it and put on my list to create if the current article is deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A low h-index (about 5) and no other indications of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has verifiable academic degrees and from the timeline apparently went into industry after postdoctoral training instead of academia. That explains the lack of publications that one would see from an academic. However a lack of publications is not always an indicator of significant contribution. He received his undergrad at Grand Canyon University, which is well-respected and accredited university in Phoenix. The article has been cleaned up and I do not agree with the deletion recommendation. (talk 05:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was posted by User:Axleoperator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: User:Axleoperator is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Risker (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here to indicate notability as either an academic or a businessperson (unless having your very own sock drawer makes you notable ;) WP:TNT to make way for an article on the economist without cluttering the edit history. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2015 (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.