Deletion of Paul G. King

Comment: Because the subject is a proponent of the fringe anti-vaccine movement, I feel that the citation counts are not an appropriate indication of the notability under the  guideline, which is intended to assess an individual's mainstream scholarly impact.  Many of the papers listed on Google scholar appear to be  research, with lots of self-citations, and low quality open-access echo chamber citations.  Google scholar is a notoriously unreliable indicator of notability of academics for those at the fringes.  The most over-the-top example I know of is https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Florentin+smarandache%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33 Florentin Smarandache
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per Sławomir Biały. In  cases one should not rely on raw citability data as many citations returned by GScholar are to fringe sources that do not pass . For a high citation rate field like chemistry, a raw GScholar h-index of 16 is fairly marginal anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:RS)

Comment: GS h-index of 16 is enough to pass rof. Public activism adds to notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: WP:RS, ,  sourcing issues and   - a . Nom beat me by a minute. (came across this as part of COI, paid editing, so suspicious editing from new account brought me here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE||WP:COATRACK||WP:TNT)