Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Francis Lewis

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Francis Lewis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Puffery from a Who's Who article. No reliable sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources currently listed in the article is reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of the subject. The best I could find with this which is at least a published book with two sentences about him, but it's not multiple sources, not in-depth, and I suspect not adequately reliable (because more interested in repeating puffed-up stories about Goans than in verifying their accuracy). His Google scholar citation record certainly does not suggest notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It claims that Lewis "narrowly missed the Nobel prize" for ... describing one species of bacterium in the genus Deinococcus? There simply isn't enough in reliable sources to write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "narrowly missed the nobel prize" line borders on making this article almost a hoax. Nothing suggests he comes close to passing notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. The only reliable source, the Times of India, accepts paid obituaries from anybody, not just licensed undertakers, as looks like this case. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Highest citation I found in Google scholar was 12, next was 4. Doesn't seem enough to pass WP:NPROF and the coverage also doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2019 (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.