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! 05:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Wyllie[edit]

Michael G. Wyllie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined to help turn Wikipedia into yet anonther advertising platform. Kepping this spam empowers paid promotion and encouraged the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Non notable individual. Lacks good independent coverage about him in multiple reliable sources, nothing good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because there is no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He seems to be given credit on a number of scientific works and generated some patents. see [1],[2], [3], [4] just a couple off a huge list. He's listed as an author of or mentioned in many, many "sciency" books, and many, many journal articles. I know these aren't nearly so well regarded on wikipedia as say, a paragraph in Sports Illustrated, but they are certainly evidence of some degree of notability. Passes gng. keep. Jacona (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Patents are self published and do not establish notability. See WP:PATENTS Billhpike (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have struck my keep vote...per several comments, primary sources, I believe to have been error Jacona (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - In my opinion, this is a borderline keep as per WP:NSCHOLAR. While not a single one of his article has more than about 100 citations, there are quite a few of them, over a prolonged period of time (from approximately 1980 through 2009), so that I feel he is a presence in his field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics. Beyond this, Wikipedia is not a site for self-promotion, and we need to vigilantly enforce out rules against such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability is marginal at best, and "Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet" tips the scale for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- As a researcher (as claimed in article), fails. No scientific articles. As a business person in Pfizer, fails. As an entrepreneur, fails. Sources are primarily PR. Rhadow (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations to his research are not heavy enough for WP:PROF#C1, even disregarding the other problems discussed above. And the "Viagra Scientist" Financial Times piece looks like the only one that might provide independent reliable coverage of Wyllie (not sure since I can't read it), not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree that citations to his research are not heavy enough for WP:PROF#C1, and everything else is questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2018 (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.