Deletion of Peter Proctor

Comment: The case for  is borderline and given all the COI and sockpuppetry issues I think we're best off without. Given that he seems to have made such a big deal about not winning the Nobel, proper coverage of him should say something about it, but disinterested and reliable sources don't seem to exist. So we're left with an unbalanced article that just avoids talking about the issue, also not a good thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The article itself could be speedied as ridiculously and over-the-top promotional, but let's put this one to rest. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3A%22PH+Proctor%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33 Searching under Gscholar for "PH Proctor" as the author finds an h-index of 14, which is too low for #C1 in the ''extremely'' high citation fields of medical research. I see no other claim to notability under . The references in this article, especially as a ton of them are primary, are a classic case of TLDR, but a gnews search, as well as the work by earlier editors on the page, find nothing to pass 's requirement for significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. The closing admin may indeed wish to consider '''salting''' the article due to the history with sockpuppetry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:BIO)