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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hutchins[edit]

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

All of the cited source are WP:PRIMARY (written by Hutchins himself and no other), no other sources. Looking up on google, I can't find anything else other than that of the late INXS singer (Michael Hutchence) not to be confused with. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable WP:THIRDPARTY source to back it up other than books by him. Donnie Park (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could find many sources on Michael Hutchins the zoologist. However this article needs a clean up! Also all references need to be improved in article. However, not sure if Hutchins is 100% notable, so delete might be necesarry.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is stated in the nomination, WP:GNG is not fulfilled; a Google search for "Michael Hutchins zoologist" turns up quite a few hits (as EllsworthSchmittendorf pointed out), but nothing notable enough (or non-primary enough) to validate this article's existence. We must remember that getting search results is not sufficient criteria for inclusion without many of those results being reliable, neutral, and/or third-party. Additionally, a copyright violation check shows that large portions this article are copied from Mr. Michael Hutchins' Linkedin page, which just about kills any chance (however slim) that this article is non-COI. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?. Searching for M Hutchins (which is the name he publishes under) gives a lot of cites on GS, but I am not sure which ones are his. Would the nominator do a citation analysis and tell us, for example, how many cites are his, and what his h-index is? This will enable a determination of whether he passes or fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I've had a look at the citations for a few publications given in the references and this with 27 was the most cited. Others are mostly < 20 citations e.g. 16 14. This and thiswhich according to the article were "seminal papers on zoo research program design ... served as a model for other zoological institutions worldwide" have been cited 2 and 18 times respectively. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this work, on the basis of which I favor Delete. Also the article makes little attempt to be consistent with Wikipedia's conventions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per my note above, WP:ACADEMIC is not met. I have searched factiva to see if there are sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BIO but only found mentions e.g. [1] [2] that are of no use for demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as this is currently not easily comprehensible and transparent to successfully pin solid notability. Delete for now at best and restart later if better, SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (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.