Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas P. Dooley


 * 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 Sing! 00:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas P. Dooley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable person, no in-depth coverage in any of the sources cited. It's a common Irish name, so there are plenty of hits on Google or G-books, but they don't seem to be this person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Passes WP:PROF with a h-index of 25, by my count (and filtering out the people who are not him). He may also pass other WP:PROF criteria. The article needs a serious cleanup, of course. -- 120.23.39.0 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (prattle)  @ 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep, with the serious cleanup suggested. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The self-published books obviously don't count. He has a respectable h-index, but in a very high-citation field, and not all of his well-cited papers list him as corresponding author. It's not clear what an "endowed chair" at the Southern Research Institute really means - they do competitive research in some areas, and he's published with their affiliation, but they describe themselves as a nonprofit university-affiliated CRO and a quick look around their website didn't turn up any mention of endowed chairs. Neither of the two companies mentioned seem to have attracted any coverage whatsoever beyond directory listings. His current company is just a compounding pharmacy. (Irrelevantly, "PanX" as a treatment for panic sounds like a Futurama product, not a real pharmaceutical. And it's hardly groundbreaking innovation: http://panx.us/tps-info.pdf.) In all, he might squeak over the WP:PROF line, but lack of independent coverage of any of his diverse range of activities plus the promotionalism makes me lean toward deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 07:08, 18 February 2015 (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.