Deletion of James Norman

Comment: High cites of 1656, 887, 434, 305, 282, 232, 218, 211, 172,196.... albeit with large author numbers in a highly cited area in Google scholar gives a clear pass of rof#C1. If somebody would find WoS citations this would be helpful. I find the prejudicial tone of some of the deletion arguments to be unWikipedian
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: I did a lot of ripping out to try to bring the article into compliance with .  The article now carries absolutely zero significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources.  The one paragraph in the middle that might possibly make this a worthwhile Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced.  This guy probably would pass  if sourcing could be found
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:PROF)

Comment: Dearth of |independent, |reliable sources (), even after the cleanup. And remember that ''Google Scholar "cite counts" are inflated'' (rof#Citation metrics) and do not form a reliable basis for AfD decisions. As far as I can tell, this fails ROF and otherwise fails . Show me the notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:THIRDPARTY||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:P||WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: This is utter  written by the doctor himself.  He thinks he's notable because he's a doctor who knows how to use the Internet??  LOLOL.  That is such a laughable claim that it makes you wonder how he ever managed to earn any degrees in anything.  No  at all available to establish any notability of any kind.  He's hoping that by writing about himself here, he can make a few more bucks while stroking his own ego.  That's what these  cases almost always boil down to.  At least he had the "integrity" to write his own article instead of paying some wiki-sock-farm hack to do it, which is what a lot of desperate doctors are doing these days
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:RS||WP:AUTO)