Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard D. King (psychiatrist)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard D. King (psychiatrist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail GNG. Unless I'm missing something (I may be) it appears he simply wrote a few pseudo-scientific books which do not have any real significance. There is a citation to a journal article which discusses the pseudo-scientific theory of melanin theory, which King is apparently mentioned in. There is then a link to an article about the oldest black owned bookstore which does not discuss King - I'm not sure why it's there. The last link is to a deleted scribd URL which apparently had a copy of his book about Melanin theory. All personal details are unsourced - which explains why it was tagged as COI (not to mention it was created by a single purpose account with 'King' in its username). There is a military man named Richard D King which confuses search results but with keywords like 'melanin' I'm not getting anything establishing notability. Ultimately, I don't see any evidence that he is a significant academic or otherwise. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete (or possibly redirect to melanin theory, although the article's current title would make that rather awkward). He existed, and he was a pseudoscientist, but he wasn't notable. I found one source describing his African Origins of Biological Psychiatry as an "important work[] from the so-called melanin scholars"—but it's a passing mention in a footnote. Melanin theory is clearly notable; King was not. Thanks to for a thoughtful nom in which they clearly did their research. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would second this was a thoughtful nom. Unfortunately the subject is not notable. Passing mentions do not notability make. --Kbabej (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt with extreme prejudice per WP:PROF, WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS. If this were 2008, we could excuse and laugh off an academic of no repute posting their own page on Wikipedia to push their pet theories, but it's 2020, and everybody knows that's not the purpose of Wikipedia, a charity. There are two sources, neither of which is reliable. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2020 (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.