Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Toth


 * 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 the article due to notability, sourcing and COI concerns. Regarding the userpage mentioned by one commenter, I don't believe these concerns apply to pages in user space, so please take it to a separate MfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Zachary Toth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only two cited papers on GS. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Meets #1. criteria for notability in all citations listed in: JAMA Psychiatry (very reliable medical journal), Time Magazine (also very reliable American journalism outlet, 2015-not too soon->2 yrs ago) & Columbia (considerably well known American ivy league university) for verified statistically relevant scientific findings about the dangers of air pollutants on brain development, as well as epidurals in neonatal brain development. Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. H-index of 2 is very far from WP:PROF. No other notability evident. In addition the article appears to be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with no significant contributions other than by an editor with the same name as the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; the Time piece says nothing about Toth as an individual, and the Columbia University one is a uni press release (i.e., not really a source independent of the subject) that mentions his name, among all the other co-authors of the study it covers, but says nothing more about him. Furthermore, merely having a paper in a well-regarded journal does not by itself count towards notability, in the absence of evidence that the paper has had a substantial impact. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. User page Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. is a copy of this AfD. It should be deleted too. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. Per nom, non-notable and inadequately supported by sources. DaveApter (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete - created by the subject or someone impersonating them, in either case without declaring the COI and putting the article through peer review before it published, per WP:COI. Fails PROF and GNG, and an effort at promotion, which is not what WP is for, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed: fails COI and PROMO. DaveApter (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (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.