Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zarling

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 Consensus to keep. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Zarling

Less than 300 hits on Google for both "David Zarling" and "David A. Zarling". Not quite sure it meets CSD criteria - Article is long, but seems to be a non-notable scientist of some sort. Prod was contested by article creator. Esteffect (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem anything is particularly notable or special about the company or the individual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a living or recently deceased scientist or academic, a search at Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com can be helpful. See hits at [Google Scholar], with the first article cited by more than 100 others. --Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prostate cancer is one of the most common and deadly forms of oncology out there. Dr. Zarling got four drug candidates that showed high efficacy and low toxicity in pre-clinical trials. I was thrilled when I saw his presentation on his ROS-combating compounds and pre-clinical data showing high efficacy of these compounds in prostate cancer. I can not put an article on Colby and drug candidates right now, but I will do that shortly after they go public. If you don't like this article, please delete it, I just wanted to contribute to the cause. Other profiles I would like to contribute are: Mitch Finer, PhD (founder of Cell Genesys and Abgenix), Hirak S. Basu, PhD, Richard Zare, PhD (Chairman, Department of Chemistry at Stanford), Hasan Mukhtar, PhD (Professor of Cancer Research and Vice Chair or Research, Department of Dermatology, UW-Madison and Chairman, Department Of Defense Prostate Cancer Medical Research Program), who are also involved in prostate cancer research. --Dnamo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dnamo created the original article. Esteffect (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but in any case rewrite--This is very clearly not an A7, for some notability is clearly claimed as both a scientist and a businessman. However, I commend the nom for picking up the somewhat dubious features in this skillful PR job. His actual scientific career, and his business career are not exactly identical. He published some good work in biochemistry and biophysics as a relatively junior scientist, and then went into the pharmaceutical development business. It is not entirely clear to me what he actually accomplished there, because he did not apparently invent any drugs that have actually come into use. He seems to have been in some way associated with some candidate drugs that have not yet gotten approval. Most candidate drugs do not get approval. He may be notable when they do, if he actually has a large part in their development. There is an important difference between "developing novel small molecule Oxidative Stress Modulator (OSM™) drug products for treatment of prostate disease" and developing successful ones. I note that OSM drugs were not the field of his original research interest in DNA structures. The other people mentioned may in fact be notable. full professors at Wisconsin and Stanford usually are. He, however, is an Associate Adjunct Professor. I'll do a fuller analysis of his papers and patents a little later. Possibly he may have been of greater scientific importance for them than first appears. Researchers are notable for their research, developers only when they suceed in developing a successful product. I wish him good luck in that, of course, but the odds are against him.DGG (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is my first time posting at Wikipedia, but I googled David Zarling today and found this article. It is incredible that you are planning to delete his most complete biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.60.93 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Eastmain above. The subject of this article has written enough articles and been cited enough for me to be convinced that he's somewhat notable in his field. Article still requires cleanup to make it less spammy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - sincere but badly ill-researched nomination - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (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.