Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas D. Taylor (3rd nomination)


 * 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) — Sam Sailor 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Douglas D. Taylor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Frankly, this reads as a WP:COATRACK. It was originally apparently a promotional article, but by now all the puff has gone and we're just left with a minor controversy and the fact that he's in bed with OMICS Group, the fraudulent academic publishing house. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the judgment of previous reviews can be trusted, and there was full knowledge of material to be removed in the 2nd nomination. The subject is lightly notable.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The judgment of previous debates was: meh (no consensus) followed by, too soon after the last debate. Since then, no substantive sources have been added. Which is the problem. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Even with the fluff removed, the subject still is notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the controversial material, which was a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Predatory journals frequently list academics on their 'editorial boards' without their consent or knowledge, and other than that there was no source to back up the claim that Taylor is/was actually involved with OMICs. The retraction is due to dodgy figures in a multi-authored paper, so a very minor controversy indeed, and the only source we had for it was the blog Retraction Watch. With that gone, there isn't much of the article left. Joe Roe (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's apparently no "blatant" violation of WP:BLP in what was removed. I have restored the material for now.  I'd like to see a link to something that explains how predatory journals frequently list academics on their editorial boards. That part of the content may be of little note anyway.  As for the "minor controversy", it appears to have enough weight for the mention it receives, but I'm open to discussion on the article's talk page.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed the part about the predatory journal due to lack of secondary RS sourcing, and I doubt there would be any for that. For the remainder, there is enough evidence that the retraction occurred.  It's just a matter of research to see how much weight that carried in reliable sources.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Continued at Talk:Douglas D. Taylor). Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject's citations according to Google Scholar appear to satisfy WP:PROF. I see no problem with including the retraction, though it's a shame the details are paywalled, but as the subject (per previous AfD) has denied involvement with the OMICS journal, that part should definitely be removed. What is really needed is more information about his undoudtedly notable research, but AfD rarely results in such improvements. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed that part per lack of secondary, reliable sourcing. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the previous AfDs, Taylor held a full professorship, is highly cited, and has received extensive coverage as the discoverer of exosomes, so is clearly a notable academic. The article is a bit coatracky right now, but that's a reason to re-add some well-sourced biographical material, not delete it. Joe Roe (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To that regard I started by adding one of the discoveries related to exosomes that was published in the journal Gynecologic Oncology. Just performing a Google Scholar search turns up a number of hits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I appear to have been the sole delete commenter in the two previous AfDs, based on WP:BLP issues regarding the quality of sourcing of negative material in the article. I now believe that the retraction is covered at an appropriate level of detail and an appropriate quality of sourcing. Also, his association with OMICS seems to be covered only by OMICS-affiliated sources, was only at the level of editorial board membership, and (though dubious) does not rise to the level of academic misconduct; I agree with its removal from the article. So I think the negative material is now handled appropriately. Otherwise, his citation record gives him a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.