Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph G. Walton (doctor)

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. Courcelles (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph G. Walton (doctor)

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

Non-notable person. According to this article, Walton is noted for his contributions to methadone therapy in the treatement of heroine addiction, and for his research in to the adverse effects of aspartame. However, there is not sufficient evidence in the article, nor can any be found, of Walton having a significant impact in the field of methadone therapy, and his positions on aspartame have been largely dismissed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been revised to include multiple references, including sources that document Walton's contributions to Methadone Maintenance. His work has been validated very scientifically in the published research which is now available in the references section. WikiDan61's claim that his work has been dismissed has not been validated. Where is WikiDan61's references to support this?? All claims refuting Walton's work have been funded by the aspartame industry, and therefore, not credible due to bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakul Bassarab (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify, no actual references have been added, only more of Dr Walton's publications. It would be a matter of original research for us to assess the impact of Dr Walton's contributions based solely on his own publications. We would require a secondary source that has already evaluated this impact. No such secondary source has been proffered. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure everyone recognizes the good intentions of User:Drakul Bassarab in creating this article, however, Wikipedia does not retain articles about individuals in any profession who do fine, professional work. To be here, articles must be about individuals who have produces work that has been recognized by multiple, reliable publications for significant on a professional field, or on the world at large.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article does not reflect particular notability as scientist; reads like resume-style hagiography. Also, IMO, one of questionable veracity and dubious and unsourced assertions, which I just removed. Quis separabit? 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches showed nothing to show notability. Scholar, for instance, returned zero hits. Other searches likewise returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 2 September 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.