Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Reddi (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Reddi

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Resume written by User:UofMMedia, now blocked, likely a COI'd editor connected with the subject's alma mater or current employer. See related discussion on WP:COIN. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article has no significant independent coverage and I could not find any. See below for source assessment. He may meet WP:NACADEMIC (although I am skeptical) as he is co-author on a few papers with >200 citations. Note that Google Scholar data is incorrect, listing at least two papers on which he is not a co-author. However, if he is a notable academic we'd essentially have to start over from scratch to obtain a neutral article. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Science, and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Pubmed listing of the Google Scholar articles.... The publications appear to be in peer reviewed journals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22anand+reddi%22. There also does appear to be a number of global health publications and focus Ajsk123 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
European AIDS Treatment Group	~ Advocacy organization	~	Reddi is quoted	✘ No
Highleyman	? Dead link	?	?	? Unknown
University of Michigan	It's his alma mater		Dead link, but presumably routine university PR	✘ No
"Leadership"			Failed verification	✘ No
BMC Pediatr.	Paper co-authored by Reddi			✘ No
The Telegraph			Quote and brief coverage. Doesn't support claims in the article that he was the "architect".	✘ No
The Guardian			Quote	✘ No
HuffPost Bio		~		✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
HuffPost article (Emanuel)	OpEd reply			✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
Devex			Quote	✘ No
Devex			Single mention	✘ No
Businesswire	Press release			✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
"Human capital contracts..."	Paper co-authored by Reddi			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, South Africa, Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed article about a researcher that fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG per the source assessment. Looks like one who may meet WP:GNG in the future. Per nom and previous AFD concern indicates WP:NPOL and needs rewriting from scratch! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does not seem to have become an academic physician (one with a faculty position at a medical school), and I don't think his student publications rise to the level of WP:PROF (as they usually don't, and especially after filtering out the not-his publications from his badly curated or uncurated Google Scholar listing). That leaves WP:GNG and the source analysis above, which I find convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG by the argument: the reasons it failed WP:GNG (and WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR) have not changed since the first AfD (which succeeded as speedy delete) for this article, and so it still fails WP:GNG. A journal search shows nothing significant since 2012, and only news results are a non-quote passing mention: so, nothing to invalidate the previous reasoning. Kimen8 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. For certain his publications and scientific awards do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The reason I use weak is that I find this page odd. Based upon the short business CV Google shows he has been in the corporate sector for some time. However, none of that is in the page, and as currently written he has no income and has not had any for a while. That seems flawed. Maybe WP:TNT is called for, although it looks like nobody has the energy to do the research to sort this out.

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.