Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Dalgleish

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Dalgleish

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

Fails general notability criteria. Contested prod; marked as of questionable notability since Aug 2015. Only 2 of the citations given are independent reliable sources about the person and both are about a failed candidacy, so fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delte His only potential notability is as a politician but he is not notable as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a run-of-the-mill medical researcher and unsuccessful politician. I'm not seeing the independent coverage sufficient to pass WP:BIO; routine articles covering election candidates aren't enough. Robofish (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Politics aside, appears to have made a number of contributions and leads a research group at SGUL[1]. Won a prize in 2011. JFW | T@lk 11:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While his political and business activities certainly don't seem notable, GScholar seems to produce two papers with over 2,000 citations each and an h-index of just below 50 - in fact, he seems significantly important as an early researcher on HIV. Even in a high-citation field like medicine, this looks adequate to satisfy WP:PROF#1. PWilkinson (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just on one point there: WP:PROF warns against using h-index. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unusually for a scientist, he campaigned for Brexit which makes him notable for his politics as well as his medical career Two Lost Souls Swimming In A Fishbowl (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' extremely well-sourced and notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 has been blocked one month for socking, his vote should be ignored Govindaharihari (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 1,6000 WorldCat listings is enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 12 July 2016 (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.