Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Poirot

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Poirot

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

I don't believe this biographical subject meets the GNG or PROF. Lots of references but little of substance - citations are mostly to book sellers, blogs, self published sources, and directories. Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability on looking for reliable sources. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, does not meet wp:GNG and definitely doesn't meet wp:PROF. BakerStMD T|C 17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, WorldCat does not seem to know about his book and his single paper (touted in the article) does not list him as primary (corresponding author). Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The scientific paper he (fourth) authored? Plus he's got a self-published self-help book? Not even close. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above assessments that notability has not been established. Lack of secondary sources. Citations from MD Anderson would be a reliable sources, except the page makes no mention of him or his work. Also, the patent mentioned in the article was granted to him (exclusively), rather he was one of three people named in the application. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not establish notability, and I cannot find sufficient RSs to do so either. Korruski^Talk 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete A pharmacologist whose most cited work has been cited 30 rtimes ins not a notable scientist. This is trivial in the subject field. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 18 February 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.