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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Getz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability at WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Cited references at the article are not from Independent Reliable Sources and do not amount to significant coverage. In a search of Google and Google News I found social media and a lot of other people by the same name. Google Scholar citations are not sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC. MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Centerwatch. I created this article and there is only one source about the subject of this article, in Nature, and I assert that is a good source but just that one is not enough. I just wrote to the subject of this article to ask him if he has otherwise ever been covered, but I expect that the answer will be no. The content here is still good, it just does not establish notability, and could be used to develop the article about Getz' organization. I regret posting this article without establishing notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with a merge to CenterWatch, where there is already some information about him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's any better. It too is mostly based on self published sources. Also, there's the question of whether the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation involvement matters more. From what I've seen, though, a biography would not have the requisite sources, while there just might be material to justify articles on one or both of the organizations. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be deleted. LeadSongDog is correct about Centerwatch also; if someone proposed that for deletion it would not be able to be saved with information from a Google search, I think. Five days ago Getz replied to my email saying he would get more information to me but so far he has failed to do so. If I get more information from him then I might re-make this article. Could I have this WP:USERFIED to user:bluerasberry/Ken Getz? I might request the same for Centerwatch if it were proposed for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Easily fails WP:GNG --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF and there is no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.