Deletion of John F. Ashton

Comment: Xxanthippe's careful dissection says it all. Does not meet  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets  #3 as a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I'm seeing little-to-no substantive ''independent'' coverage here. Most sources listed either (i) include Ashton himself as a (co-)author, (ii) are creationist (and thus ) affiliates of Ashton, (iii) are/were Ashton's employer and/or (iv) make only passing (and/or dismissive) mention of it. The sourcing for this article is ''really crappy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Updated May 10): After spending several days patiently sifting through the myriad low quality sources, I was not able to find anything at all that even came close to satisfying any of the the criteria of ,  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: strong); per ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:PROF)

Comment: Does not meet , does not meet . The article is a complete disaster and would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic (but with what sources?!). The AfD has only made the article worse because of the low quality reference stuffing, for example, this source http://books.google.ie/books?id=v9onAQAAIAAJ&q=%22chocolate+a+day%22+ashton&redir_esc=y which was added does not even appear to mention ashton. The references are absolutely terrible. There appears to be a near total absense of any coverage in reliable independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: In addition to my earlier comments, which were based on the content of the article and the lack of good sources that could be found on its subject, JJB's problematic behavior here and on the article (, , ) makes it look very unlikely that we can maintain a properly sourced and properly neutral article. Essentially, anything that anyone else removes for being too weakly sourced, too picayune, or too remote from the subject gets put back redoubled. If there is a core of notability here (which I doubt, but if there is) then he is making it impossible for the rest of us to find it by insisting on padding the article with all this non-notable fluff
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:TE||WP:WIKIPUFFERY)

Comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (|step 3).  I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDHOWTO)

Comment: Citations (including those of his religious publications) in Google Scholar are 35, 34, 32, 12, 11, 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 2... with an h-index of 6. This is not remotely enough to pass rof#C1 in the highly cited field of life sciences. I note that Ashton sometimes credits himself with a PhD in the author lists of the science papers he publishes. This is strictly correct, but his PhD is in theology, not science. There is a claim that he was elected a member of RACI in 1992. I have been unable to verify this as it is behind a pay-wall but, if it is correct, it is strange because he only achieved a publication record after that time. As noted above he does not hold the highest rank in that society and, anyway, it is questionable if RACI is a prominent enough society to give an automatic pass of rof#C3. I conclude that he fails all of rof. The only possibility of notability may be found through uthor in the topic of fringe religion. However, even here, his GS cites are miniscule many being to a book he has edited. Most of the sources that an enthusiastic editor has been adding to the article are so marginal as to be practically worthless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P||WP:P||WP:A)

Comment: I, too, having read the long and tendentious arguments for keep, am unchanged in my vote to delete this BLP on the basis of the well-established Wikipedia policies rof and . All that has happened since this AfD debate started is that a vast amount of trivial and peripheral material has been added to the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)