Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas D. Taylor

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 Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawnm

Douglas D. Taylor[edit]

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

Article is made up of primary sources, press releases, a self-authored paper, etc. I do not see any acceptable sources in the current article and the alleged controversy cited to "Retraction Watch" appears to be in violation of BLP, which requires stronger sources for such criticisms. The article also contains bold claims like discovering "tumor-secreted exosomes", which is what the company's press releases claims, but a quick Google search suggests this is most probably not true, or if it is, it was not significant enough for anyone to report on it. If there are any in-depth profiles on this BLP, they are not included in the article and do not come up in search results. CorporateM (Talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To report on the subject neutrally, we need to include the negative material (the retraction and the predatory journal editing), since those are very salient for an academic. But such negative material in a BLP requires a higher standard of sourcing and notability that doesn't seem to be present here. One can make a case that his citation counts are good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but they're not backed up by good secondary sourcing about the subject, and his use of predatory journals calls the validity of his citation counts into question. The better solution is just to delete the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference in the book Dialysis: History, Development and Promise that shows that Taylor has recieved coverage in reliable sources. His work has been inpactful and cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be very surprising if an academic of Douglas Taylor's standing and achievements (full professorship, chair, many highly cited publications, key position with several companies) did not satisfy WP:N. I would note that the nominating editor has been edit-warring to keep verifiable and reliably sourced information about the subject off of Wikipedia. Lights N (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and the MarketWatch cite. This person has done pioneering research work noted in two separate reliable sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the controversial aspects only add to the notability. Whether these revelations cancel out any or all of his achievements should be left to the reader, not for us in determining notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This source provided during the AfD discussion appears to include a claim to notability, as the first to observe Exosomes. The OR/SYNTH/UNDUE issues are not for AFD. A 2-3 paragraph stub should do the trick though. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The papers discussed ave many hundreds of citations each, which is enough to meet WP:PROF.

whether he extent is valid is not a factor in his notability. We are not assigning scientific merithere , just recognizing ntoability, whichis adifferent concept. A person can be very highly notable for prominent errors. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 July 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.