Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Clement (scientist)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

James Clement (scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

BLP of a subject with doubtful notability. A couple of the sources look ok, but the article relies too much on sources that are associated with the subject in some way. Bringing here for a consensus view. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete "A professed citizen-scientist", he fails WP:NACADEMIC; an author, he fails WP:AUTHOR; a notable person, he fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yikes, this article reads very PROMO. A quick summary of the sources:


 * I would say he is 100% not a scientist according to the sources (or by any stretch of the imagination) and should not be called as such by Wikipedia, but he does appear to have SIGCOV in multiple RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The New York Times and MIT Technology Review are solid sources by any measure, regardless of what you think of the guy, or what he's doing, and both pieces were squarely about him and his work, not tangential. I think what may be rubbing people the wrong way is that "scientist" disambiguation label. There are a lot of people who've put a lot of work into getting doctorates in scientific fields, and someone coming late, without that dues-paying, is naturally going to raise some eyebrows. But that doesn't make him, or what he's doing, any less notable. He's just a quarter-century too late for Mondo 2000; he'd have fit right in. Bill Woodcock (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Nominator didn't provide conclusive comments in favor of deletion. Please provide the reason in favour of your vote than just saying, per Nom. Kirtos67 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Hi, thank you I want to say that he is a well known scholar and scientist in the respected field that's why I thought he passes GNG and maybe I opt a wrong title that I can edit as per your suggestions. Here are some work and articles that may help but I am not sure now.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, some are questioning about his scientist status. It might be he isn't a mainstream scientist. But definitely notable figure per source analysis of Bwoodcock. Kirtos67 (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable non-scientist :p ...as per JoelleJay's assessment of sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forgot to add my keep vote. "Scientist" should definitely be removed from the title and from descriptions, though, per FRINGE and per sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2021 (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.