Talk:Ken R. Harewood

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because this article is a stub and I fully intended to edit it further. I began by adding references and will soon do a re-write to eliminate the original text. --Zeamays (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Professor Harewood
No reason has been given why this highly-recognized industrial and academic scientist should not be considered notable. The references in many publications, including the Wall Street Journal are surely an indication. By itself, award of the Barbados Barbados Gold Crown of Merit award should be enough. --Zeamays (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The criteria for notability are listed at WP:NACADEMIC. Any claims that the subject meets one or more of those criteria would of course need to be properly sourced. – bradv 🍁  22:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please remove this improper tag. You have given no reason not addressed above. --Zeamays (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the aforementioned WSJ article already, which makes exactly two references to Harewood. This does not satisfy the requirement for significant coverage demanded by the general notability guidelines. Both references to Harewood are brief in nature, and as indicated by the title you provided, focuses on Chambers. (the PDF copy I looked at, which I can provide via email to anybody interested, is titled "N.C. Central's Bid to Excel In Science Has a Way to Go", and can be found via WP:TWL).
 * I try to exhaust my resources before I tag an article for notability. I don't see much on Harewood yet, but I'll admit that I may have missed something. The newspaper coverage I have found through newspapers.com and other sources is also only a smattering of trivial mentions. Frankly, we need more than what has been shown so far. Your verbiage gives me pause. "Highly-recognized" is a typical form of puffery, and not something which strikes me as neutral. The opposite of neutral, actually. If you have a conflict of interest, it might be best to be open about it, as the rest of us who take great care to avoid such flattery of the topics we write about tend to find that inappropriate. ASUKITE  05:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Industrial scientists pose a special problem for those trying to document their achievements. Unlike academics, they seldom publish, and Pfizer has a long history of using "industrial secrecy", rather than patents to protect its technology.  Much of what you claim is undocumented, I know from my personal acquaintance with this minority scientist to be true. You are definitely missing something, but it is a very difficult case for other reasons that I cannot reveal.  I am continuing to accumulate references from Barbadian sources, but this will take time. Please don't do anything drastic in the meantime. --Zeamays (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is your connection to the subject of this article? – bradv 🍁  18:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I knew him as a colleague at Pfizer in the 1980s. I never worked under him, he was in a different group. --Zeamays (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)